Karnataka High Court
Sri Rafiulla vs Bajaj Allianze General Insurance ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
MFA No. 3133 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3133 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAFIULLA
S/O SHAIK MOHIDDIN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMARALAVADI VILLAGE
POST AND HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
GOLDEN HIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR
NO.1/2, 59, 59TH CROSS ROAD,
4TH MAIN 'M' BLOCK
RAJAJINAGARA
BENGALURU -560 010
Digitally BY ITS MANAGER
signed by B
2. SRI. ABDUL JABBAR
LAVANYA
S/O M. MUGABUL SAB
Location: MAJOR
HIGH
R/AT DODDAMARALAVADI VILLAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA POST AND HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 121
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAGADISH P S.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1., NOTICE TO R-2
IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 29.05.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
MFA No. 3133 of 2023
DATED 31.01.2023, PASSED IN MVC NO.6080/2019 BY THE
MEMBER - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND 12TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 31st January 2023
passed in MVC.No.6080/2019 by the XII Additional Judge &
ACMM, Court of Small Causes and the Member - MACT,
Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'). This appeal is founded
on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 16.8.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., the claimant was
proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-42-K-
2028 as pillion rider and when he reached Maralavadi village
bus stand bridge, at that time one cow come across the road
and rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied brake, as a result
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
the motorcycle fell down and the claimant was thrown to the
road, due to which he suffered grievous injuries. He was
shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Bengaluru, where he took
treatment as an in-patient for six days. According to the
doctor, the claimant sustained fracture of both tibia and fibula
of right leg and was operated and fixed with interlocking nail
and even after the treatment, it is difficult for the claimant to
walk, stand and squat and he was advised follow up treatment.
It is stated prior to the occurrence of the accident, claimant
was hale and healthy and running cycle shop and also doing
agriculture work earning Rs.25,000/- per month. On these
grounds, the claimant preferred a claim petition seeking
compensation.
3.1 On service of notice, Respondent No.1 appeared
through counsel, filed written statement and denied the
averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal
of the claim petition. Respondent No.2 did not appear and he
was placed exparte before the Tribunal.
3.2 On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the
case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1, doctor as
PW.2 and other witness as PW.3 and got marked the
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. On the other hand, the
respondents got examined one witness as RW.1 and got
marked documents as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. It is the vehement contention of leaned counsel for
the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in
not awarding just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal
erred in assessing the income of the claimant on the lower side.
The Tribunal also erred in assessing the disability of the
claimant to be 6% for computation of loss of future income. He
also contended that the compensation awarded under the other
heads is on the lower side and requires enhancement. On
these grounds, he seeks for substantial enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
respondent/Insurance Company contends that there is no
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment & award and
the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under
all the heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both
oral and documentary and the same does not call for
interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on
16.8.2019 and the claimant sustained certain injuries. In order
to substantiate the same, the claimant adduced evidence and
produced the documents - Ex.P1 to Ex.P30, the police records
as well as medical records. The police records go to show the
registration of the FIR, laying of the charge sheet and
involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The medical records
go to show the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the
claimant and the medical expenses incurred by the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
8. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and
income of the claimant, the Tribunal has taken the age of the
claimant as 51 years as on the date of occurrence of the
accident. The appropriate multiplier considering the age would
be '11', which is rightly taken by the Tribunal and the same
does not call for interference. In the absence of proof of
income, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the
claimant to be Rs.14,000/- per month as per the Legal Services
Authority chart, which does not call for interference. Though
the doctor/PW.2 assessed whole body disability of the claimant
to be 20%, the Tribunal taken the disability to be 6% for
computation of compensation. Considering the age, avocation
and the disability assessed by the doctor, I deem it appropriate
to assess the functional disability to be 10%. In view of the
above, 'loss of future income' would be Rs.14,000 x 12 x 11 x
10% = Rs.1,84,800/- as against Rs.1,10,880/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
9. Towards 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.40,000/-, which is on the lower side.
Considering the injuries suffered, I deem it appropriate to
award Rs.50,000/- under this head.
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
10. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.28,925/- on the basis of the actual bills
produced by the clamant, which does not call for interference.
11. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.40,000/-. I deem it appropriate to award
Rs.60,000/- under this head.
12. Towards loss of earning during laid up period, the
Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.28,000/-, which is on
the lower side. Considering the fact that the claimant
sustained 10% disability to the whole body, atleast three
months is required to recuperate and get back to the normal
day to activities. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award
Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 3) under this head.
13. Towards conveyance, food and nourishment, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- and the same is retained.
14. Towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.25,000/-. I deem it appropriate to retain the
same.
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
15. In view of the above discussion, the
appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.4,00,725/- as against Rs.2,82,805/- awarded by the
Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of future income Rs.1,84,800-00
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
3 Medical expenses Rs. 28,925-00
4 Loss of amenities Rs. 60,000-00
5 Conveyance, food and Rs. 10.000-00
nourishment
6 Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000-00
7 Loss of earning during laid up Rs. 42,000-00
period
Total Rs.4,00,725=00
16. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,00,725/- (Rupees four
NC: 2024:KHC:7500
lakhs seven hundred and twenty-five only) as
against Rs.2,82,805/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the
rate of 9% per annum on the compensation
amount of Rs.2,82,805/- is left undisturbed.
The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum;
iv) The impugned judgment & award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.6080/2019 is modified
accordingly.
v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid by the 1st respondent with interest at 6%
per annum, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
vi) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellant/claimant upon proper
verification;
vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
Tribunal shall stand intact.
viii) Registry is directed to transmit the original
records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GSS
