Karnataka High Court
Satish Krishnaji Inamdar vs Raju S/O. Shantappa Wali on 26 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
MFA No. 101600 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101600 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SATISH KRISHNAJI INAMDAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: (AGRICULTURE), NOW NIL,
R/O. GORAVANAKOLLA VILLAGE,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJU S/O. SHANTAPPA WALI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O. GORAVANAKOLLA VILLAGE,
TAL: SAUNDATTI.
ROHAN 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/SENIOR EXECUTIVE,
HADIMANI THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
T 1663, SHRI BHAWANI CHAMBERS,
Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI
T
2ND FLOOR, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI,
Date: 2024.02.28
12:12:36 +0530
BELGAUM-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:
18.03.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.2159/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
MFA No. 101600 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured assailing the
judgment and award dated 18.03.2014 passed in MVC
No.2159/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT,
Saundatti (for short, 'Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal
awarded a total compensation for a sum of Rs.2,91,400/- to
the appellant along with the interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
the present appeal is filed.
2. Brief facts are that on 24.04.2012, the appellant
was a pillion rider along with the rider of motor cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-24/L-2941 presiding from Munavalli
towards Goravanakolla at about 4.30 P.M., the rider of the
motor cycle who was the negligent, lost the control of the
motor cycle and fell down along with the appellant. Due to
the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his
right forearm and other internal injuries to his back. He was
shifted to the Government Hospital, Saundatti and provided
treatment. The appellant had filed a claim petition and
adduced the evidence, the tribunal considering the same
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
award a total compensation of Rs.2,91,400 along with the
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the tribunal has committed
grave error in assessing the income of the injured at a sum
of Rs.6,000/-. As the appellant was hale and healthy and
was earning Rs.2,00,000/- from his agricultural activity and
maintaining his family. Due to the accident, he has suffered
disability and not in position to carry out the same activity
with what he was doing before to the accident. Hence, seeks
to enhance the compensation by assessing his income
appropriately and award compensation of Rs.14,25,000/-. It
is submitted that the tribunal had not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities and the
award of compensation on other heads are also at the lower
side, therefore she seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing
the compensation.
4. Per contra, Sri.M Y. Katagi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned
award of the tribunal and submits that the appellant has not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
placed any evidence before the tribunal insofar as the
income. Hence, the tribunal has justified in assessing the
income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month. He
submits that the awards of compensation by the tribunal on
other heads are also just and proper and does not call for
any interference hence he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondents perused the material available on record, the
following point that arise for consideration is:
a) Whether the appellant/claimant would be entitled
for enhanced compensation?
6. Answer to the above point would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant has
sustained grievous injuries in a road accident on 24.02.2012.
The appellant was a pillion rider on vehicle bearing
Registration No.KA-24/L-2941, which was insured with the
respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that the appellant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
claimed that he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from
his agriculture work. However, no evidence is placed on
record before the tribunal to assess the income of the
appellant. In view of the same, it would be just and proper
to assess the income of the appellant at Rs.6,500/- per
month notionally. Taking note of the notional income chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
this Court assess the income of the appellant at Rs.6,500/-
per month for the purpose of determining the compensation.
8. The tribunal has committed grave error in not
awarding any compensation under the head of loss of
amenities. Taking note of the injuries suffered by the
appellant and the duration of treatment, it would be just and
proper award of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of
amenities, in addition, to the other heads awarded by the
tribunal. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of
Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. The
evidence indicate that the appellant has suffered radius and
ulna injuries therefore he was required to take rest and
further treatment, hence it would be just and proper to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
award additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the
head of pain and sufferings in addition to what is awarded by
the tribunal. The tribunal has applied 18 as multiplier. Taking
note of the age of the appellant as 26 years, appropriate
multiplier is 17. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to
compensation on the head of loss of future earning capacity
as under:
Rs.6,500 x 12 x 17 x 14/100 = Rs.1,85,640/-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Towards pain and agony Rs. 30,000/-
2 Towards transportation Rs. 10,000/-
3 Towards attendant charges Rs. 4,500/-
4 Towards food and nutrition Rs. 6,000/-
5 Towards medicine bills Rs. 6,855/-
6 Hospital bills Rs. 28,600/-
7 Towards loss of income during laid up Rs. 26,000/-
period
8 Loss of future earning due to disability Rs.1,85,640/-
9 Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.3,27,59/-
* It is seen that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the
total compensation amount at tabular column. The total
compensation ordered by the Tribunal is Rs.2,81,394/-,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
however it is mentioned as Rs.2,91,400/- thus the same is
maintained.
9. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,27,595/- as against Rs.2,91,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 18.03.2014
passed in MVC No.2159/2012 by the tribunal, is
modified to an extent that the appellant would
be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.3,27,595/- as against Rs.2,91,400/- awarded
by the tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.36,195/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till date of
payment.
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation along with interest
before the Tribunal within six weeks from today.
v) On such deposit, the same shall be released in
favour of the appellant/claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4522
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
