Karnataka High Court
Pradeep S/O.Ramesh Korvi vs Mr.Purushottam S/O.Mayaram Jakhotia on 28 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
MFA No. 101059 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101059 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
PRADEEP
S/O. RAMESH KORVI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (NOW NIL),
REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND WIFE
SMT. JYOTI W/O. PRADEEP KORVI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BACHI, TQ and DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI (BY SRI. UMESH C.AINAPUR, ADV.)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. MR. PURUSHOTTAM
S/O. MAYARAM JAKHOTIA,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O : 6/497, SHRI. SATYA BUILDING,
NEAR BLOOD BANK, DATE MALA,
A/P : ICHALKARANJI, TQ : HATKANGALA,
DIST : KOLHAPUR, STATE : MAHARASHTRA.
PIN CODE: 416109.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
MFA No. 101059 of 2020
(OWNER OF HONDA CITY CAR BEARING
REG.NO.MH.09/DA-4474)
2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COM.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, MADIWALE
ARCADE, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001
(POLICY NO.HBA/00283805)
VALID FROM 25.03.2015 TO 24.03.2016)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2164/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
M.I.ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
MFA No. 101059 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.09.2019
in M.V.C. No.2164/2015 passed by the X Addl. District and
Member of Addl. MACT, Belagavi, the petitioner therein has
preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per the status before the Trial Court.
3. On 27.09.2015 at about 12:00 a.m., the petitioner
while riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-09/CE-
6722 met with an accident on Kolhapur-Ichalkaranji road with a
Honda City car bearing registration No.MH-09/DA-4474. The
said car was duly insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company. The accident happened due to the negligence of the
driver of the car. The petitioner suffered the following injuries
due to the said accident:
i) Large degloving injury over scalp over occipital
region.
ii) Fracture frontal bone, bifrontal hemorrhagic
contusion.
iii) Left frontal EDH, diffuse cerebral oedema.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
iv) Loss of vision of right eye.
4. The aforesaid injuries due to the said accident
amounts to 60% whole body disability. The Tribunal, based on
the pleadings and the evidence led in, has awarded a
compensation of Rs.13,10,280/- alongwith interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization
of the entire award amount. Not satisfied by the same, the
present appeal is filed by the petitioner therein.
5. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute. The
liability of the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is also
not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration
is, the extent of compensation payable to the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 23 years
at the time of the accident and the treated doctor has deposed
that he has suffered a whole body disability at 60% and the
petitioner has not adduced any cogent evidence to establish his
income before the Tribunal. For that reason, the income of the
petitioner is taken at Rs.8,000/- which is the notional income
as per the chart of Lok Adalat prepared in consultation with the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
Insurance Companies. The multiplier applicable as per Sarla
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another1 is 18, as the whole body disability is 60%, given the
nature of injuries, this Court is of the opinion that 40% has to
be added towards loss of future prospects to the compensation
payable to the petitioner under the head loss of future
earnings. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.14,51,520/- (Rs.8,000 X 12 X 18 X 60% + 40%) as against
Rs.6,04,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Given the nature of injuries, this Court is of the
opinion that the laid up period has to be considered as six
months as against one year arrived at by the Tribunal. Thus, on
the count of loss of income during laid up period, a sum of
Rs.48,000/- is being awarded.
8. With regard to other heads under which
compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, we do not see
any reason for varying the same.
9. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled for the
compensation under the following heads:
2009 (6) SCC 121
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period Rs.48,000/-
Loss of future earnings or loss of earning
Rs.14,51,520/-
capacity
Loss of happiness and future amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of expectancy of life Rs.50,000/-
Loss of marriage prospectus Rs.50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.2,96,480/-
Incidental expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.21,21,000/-
10. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs.8,10,720/- (Rs.21,21,000/- as
against Rs.13,10,280/-, as awarded by the Tribunal). Given the
bank rate of interest, we are of the opinion, 6% interest on the
enhanced compensation would be appropriate. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The petitioner would be entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs.8,10,720/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition before the
Tribunal till realization, which shall be over
and above what has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4617-DB
(iii) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
shall pay the aforementioned amounts to
the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSH, CT: UMD
