Karnataka High Court
Smt Tabssum Ara vs Sri Gangadhar K on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
MFA No. 927 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.927 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. TABSSUM ARA,
W/O. MOUZAM ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO 201, 11TH CROSS,
OPP MEKHA MASJID
BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 68
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA NATIVE ADDRESS: ADIGERE VILLAGE,
PARVEEN CHINTAMANI TALUK,
Location: HIGH CHIKKABALLAPURA.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GANGADHAR K.,
S/O KITTANNA
KORUKANAPALLI VILLAGE,
GOWNIPALLI POST,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DIST.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO 144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU.
BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);
V/O. DATED 09.02.2023 - NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
MFA No. 927 of 2023
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.7619/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, 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.Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in
MVC No.7619/2017 dated 30.06.2022. On the ground that she
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the
appellant filed an application claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,952/- as compensation and
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
3. Making his submission Sri.Shripad V. Shstri, learned
counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained
grievous injuries due to the accident. Learned counsel states
that the appellant due to the injuries sustained became
permanently disabled and the aspect of disability is established
before the Tribunal through the evidence of PW2. Learned
counsel also sates that appellant by doing vegetable vending
business was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel
also states that though PW4 who examined the appellant
deposed that on examining the appellant he assessed the
disability in respect of the whole body at 17%, without giving
any reasons, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole
body as '10%' which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also
states that the Tribunal erred in assessing and awarding
compensation under all other heads. Learned counsel ultimately
seeks for enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri.S.V.Hegde
Mulkhand on the other hand submits that though the appellant
has not produced any evidence with regard to her occupation
and earnings, yet the Tribunal took the notional income as
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
Rs.11,000/- per month which is highly justifiable. Learned
counsel also submits that the Tribunal having perceived the fact
that the appellant attend normality, awarded just sum as
compensation and therefore, the award of the Tribunal needs
no interference.
5. The impugned order reveals that the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- towards loss of future income,
Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and sufferings during the
treatment period, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and
nutritious food, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and
conveyance, Rs.7,952/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses.
6. As rightly submitted by Sri.Shripad V Shastri,
learned counsel for the appellant, PW4 stated that the disability
in respect of whole body is 17%. The appellant sustained
communicated fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture
base of first metacarpal. Also the appellant underwent surgery.
However, when the entire evidence of PW4 is put to scrutiny,
this Court is of the view that the disability assessed in respect
of the whole body is on higher side. Though elaborate
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
reasoning is not given by the Tribunal in the impugned order as
to how it took the permanent physical disability as 10%, yet
the assessment of disability is proper. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that there is no need to interfere in that regard.
However, the Tribunal did not add future prospects. It is not in
dispute that the appellant was aged about 40 years by the date
of accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of the actual earnings are
required to be added as future prospects. On adding the same,
the loss of further earnings due to permanent physical will
would be as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional income per month
11,000-00
Annual income (11,000 x
12) 1,32,000-00
Add 40% towards future
prospects(1,32,000+40%) 1,84,800-00
Applying the appropriate
multiplier
27,72,000-00
'15'(1,84,800x15)
Permanent disability being
2,77,200-00
10%
Loss of earnings due to
2,77,200-00
permanent physical
disability
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
7. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and
treatment taken, this Court is of the view that, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is required to be awarded under the head pain and
suffering. Also the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under the head loss of earnings during laid up period.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the
view that the appellant would not have attended her normal
pursuits at-least for a period of three months. Thus, loss of
earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.33,000/- (11,000 x
3). Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled
to under different heads is as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No Rs.
1 Loss of future earnings due
to permanent physical 2,77,200-00
disability
2 For pain and sufferings 40,000-00
3 Loss of amenities in life and
30,000-00
for nutritious food
4 Conveyance and attendant
10,000-00
charges
5 Medical expenses 7,952-00
6 Future medical expense 15,000-00
7 Loss of earnings during laid
33,000-00
up period
Total Compensation 4,13,152-00
NC: 2024:KHC:31592
8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC
No.7619/2017 dated 30.06.2022 is enhanced from 2,80,952/-
to Rs.4,13,152/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
vi) Pay and recovery as ordered by the Tribunal
remains undisturbed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
