Karnataka High Court
Sri Balaprabhu M vs Sri Mahadevaswamy D on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
MFA No. 2100 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2100 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BALAPRABHU M.,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA H.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.9, OOTI ROAD,
OPP. TO CARMEL SCHOOL, SRIKANTANAGARA,
NANJANGUD RURAL,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY D.,
S/O DODDAMADAIAH,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
signed by R/AT HOUSE 460,
YAMUNA K L
KOTHALLAWADI VILLAGE AND POST,
Location:
High Court of CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ AND DIST-571 123.
Karnataka
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MYTHRI ARCADE BUILDING,
1ST MAIN, NEAR SARASWATHI THEATER,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
MFA No. 2100 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 30.07.2021 IN MVC
NO.1389/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES
AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Syed Abdul Saboor, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Sri.P.S. Jagadish, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru
in M.V.C No.1389/2017 dated 30.07.2021. This is a
claimant's appeal.
3. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.1,99,500/- as compensation as against the
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
claim for Rs.26,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed.
4. Arguing in respect of the merits of the matter
Sri. Syed Abdul Saboor, learned counsel submits that the
appellant has sustained grievous injury due to the accident
and became permanent disabled. Learned counsel states
that though the doctor who treated and assessed the
disability was examined as PW-3, without considering the
said evidence, the tribunal has awarded a meager sum as
compensation which is highly unjustifiable. Learned
counsel also contends that the tribunal has not taken the
exact salary of the appellant into consideration. Learned
counsel states that the appellant was working as a teacher
and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.
However, the tribunal took the notional income as
Rs.7,000/- per month which is unjustifiable. Learned
counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2017
and for the relevant period even the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
Rs.11,000/- per month and the tribunal did not consider
atleast the said figure.
5. Learned counsel also states that the tribunal did
not award justifiable sum even under other heads i.e.,
towards pain and suffering, towards loss of income during
laid up period, for attendant charges, food and
nourishment etc., and therefore under all the heads, there
is requirement to enhance the sum and to award a
justifiable sum as compensation. On the other hand,
Sri.P.S.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.2
contends that the tribunal has awarded sufficient sum of
compensation, taking into consideration all the aspects of
the case. However, there may be marginal enhancement
but not as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant has
sustained fracture of right patella and took treatment as
inpatient.
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
7. The doctor who examined the appellant i.e.,
Dr.Girish Kumar M.V who was examined as PW-3, stated
that he assessed the functional disability in respect of the
affected limb as 35.4%. The tribunal took the functional
disability in respect of whole body as 12%. The said
assessment in the considered opinion of this Court is
justifiable.
8. Coming to the income of the appellant by the date
of accident, as per his version, as a teacher he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as rightly
observed by the tribunal the appellant failed to produce
any cogent and convincing evidence to establish the said
fact. However, as rightly put forth by learned counsel
Sri. Syed Abdul Saboor, the tribunal ought to have taken
the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per
month which figure was taken into consideration even by
the State Legal Services Authority for assessment of
compensation for the accidents that occurred in the year
2017.
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged
about 52 years by the date of accident. Thus, the relevant
multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others -vs- Delhi
Transport Corpiration and another case reported in 2009
ACJ 1298 case is '11'. That a part, as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case, having
regard to the age of the appellant as 52 years by the date
of accident, 10% of the actual earning are required to be
added towards future prospects. On applying the
aforementioned parameters, the loss of future earning due
to permanent physical disability if calculated will be as
under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional income per month Rs.11,000-00
Annual income Rs.1,32,000-00
(11,000 x 12)
Add 10% towards future Rs.1,45,200-00
prospects
Apply appropriate multiplier Rs.15,97,200-00
'11'
Permanent physical disability Rs.1,91,664-00
being 12%
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
In the light of the fact that the appellant has
sustained grievous injury due to the accident, took
treatment as inpatient and has he was affected with
functional disability to an extent of 12%, the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to under
different heads will be as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for Pain and Rs.25,000-00
suffering
Loss of earning during laid Rs.22,000-00
up period (2 x 11000/-)
Compensation for attendant Rs.10,000-00
charges, extra,
nourishment, diet and
conveyance
Loss of amenities Rs.10,000-00
Medical expenses Rs.51,500-00
Loss of future income Rs.1,91,664-00
Total 3,10,164-00
In the light of the foregoing findings, the following:-
ORDER
i) The appeal is Allowed in Part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mysore through orders in
NC: 2024:KHC:31017
M.V.C No.1389/2017 dated 30.07.2021 is enhanced from
Rs.1,99,500 to Rs.3,10,164/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
iv) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
v) On such deposit the appellant is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT:SNN
