Karnataka High Court

Sri. Nagappa vs Sri. Venkatesh Reddy on 12 January, 2024

                                                            -1-
                                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:1862
                                                                          MFA No. 7915 of 2019




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                    DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                                        BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
                                           MFA NO. 7915 OF 2019 (MV-I)
                             BETWEEN:

                             SRI. NAGAPPA
                             S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                             R/AT NEAR DARGADAGUDI, 1ST WARD
                             RAMPURA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMUR
                             TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST 572 540             ...APPELLANT

                             (BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADV.)

                             AND:

                             1.      SRI. VENKATESH REDDY
                                     AGED MAJOR, S/O. NAGAPPA
                                     R/AT T. KORACHARAHATTI
                                     RAJAPURA VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK
                                     BELLARY DISTRICT 583 129

                             2.      THE BRANCH MANAGER
                                     THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
                                     SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP: KSRTC BUS
Digitally signed by MALA K           STAND, B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN 577 501
N
Location: HIGH COURT OF                                               ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA                    (BY SMT.HARINI SHIVANAND, ADV. FOR R2;
                                 R1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

                                  THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
                             ACT,   AGAINST     THE   JUDGMENT    AND     AWARD
                             DATED.26.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.732/2018 ON THE
                             FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-III,
                             CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
                             COMPENSATION     AND   SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT     OF
                             COMPENSATION.

                                  THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                             THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -2-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:1862
                                                        MFA No. 7915 of 2019




                          JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the

judgment and award dated 26.07.2019 in

M.V.C.No.732/2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge and C.J.M. and M.A.C.T.-III ('the Tribunal' for

short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 02.01.2018 at

about 05:30 pm while the petitioner was riding the

motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-09/AM-7934 along with

his wife as a pillion rider near the land of one Umesha,

Obalapura Village, Molakalmur Taluk, hit by another

motor cycle bearing Chassis No.ME-4JC 654 DHT

025303 (offending motor cycle), injuring both of them.

After taking treatment at Government Hospital,

Molakalmur and V.I.M.S. Hospital, Bellary, the

petitioner approached the Tribunal for grant of

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claim was opposed

NC: 2024:KHC:1862

by the Insurance Company of the offending motor

cycle. The Tribunal after taking the evidence, by

impugned judgment, awarded compensation of

Rs.3,14,105/- with 8% interest p.a. Pleading

inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner

has filed this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. B. Pramod,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Harini

Shivanand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has suffered fracture of

both the bones of right forearm and fracture of right

calcaneum, he was under hospitalization for 1 month;

in spite of it, the Tribunal has not awarded the

compensation properly, income assessed is on the

lower side for assessment of loss of future earnings, no

compensation is awarded towards loss of income

during laid-up period and he sought for enhancement.

NC: 2024:KHC:1862

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that though the medical

evidence speaks of 58% limb disability, the Tribunal

has taken whole body disability at 20% which is on the

higher side and she has no objection for awarding

compensation towards loss of income during laid up

and she sought for reduction of percentage of

disability. It is further contended that the Tribunal has

awarded 8% interest p.a. which is on the higher side

as no banks will offer such a rate of interest on fixed

deposits and it has to be reduced to 6% p.a.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused

the materials on record.

8. The material on record did point out that there

was an accident on 02.01.2018 at 05:30 am at

Obalapura Village involving 2 motor cycles, injuring the

petitioner and his wife by the offending motor cycle.

Medical record points out that the petitioner has

suffered fracture of both the bones of right forearm,

NC: 2024:KHC:1862

fracture of right calcaneum and he was under

hospitalization for 1 month. PW-3 Dr.

Denkatashivareddy, the treated Doctor with reference

to the age of the petitioner (55 years), being an

Agricultural Coolie, made assessment of limb disability

at 58% and the Tribunal has taken whole body

disability at 20% which is on the higher side. At the

age of 55, the petitioner suffering fracture of right

upper and lower limbs, certainly affects his earning

capacity as a Coolie. 15% is the reasonable whole

body disability and accordingly it has to be assessed.

The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the

petitioner at Rs.8,000/-, whereas a person with no

proof of income in the year 2018 will earn not less than

Rs.12,500/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any

compensation towards loss of income during laid-up

period for which the petitioner has to be compensated.

9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as

follows:

NC: 2024:KHC:1862

Sl. No. Particulars Rs.

1 Loss of future earnings 2,11,200 2 Medical expenses 7,905 3 Nourishment and miscellaneous 10,000 expenses 4 Pain, injuries and sufferings 25,000 5 Loss of amenities, enjoyment of life 60,000 and discomforts Total 3,14,105

The method adopted by the Tribunal in awarding

compensation is not proportionate to the gravity of the

injury, age and avocation of the petitioner. The

petitioner is entitled for just and proper compensation.

He has to be paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain

and sufferings, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities

and discomfort, medical expenses of Rs.7,905/-. The

petitioner was inpatient for 1 month; hence, attendant

charges has to be assessed at Rs.12,500/-,

Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment and

Rs.2,000/- towards travelling expenses. He was laid-

up for 6 months, hence loss of income during laid-up

period has to be assessed at Rs.75,000/- (Rs.12,500/-

x 6). As regarding loss of future earnings is

NC: 2024:KHC:1862

concerned, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-, '11' is the

applicable multiplier. By applying the principles of

National Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Pranay Sethi and

Others1, for a person aged 55 years with no proof of

income, future prospects of 10% has to be added.

Then, loss of future earnings will be Rs.12,500/- +

Rs.1,250/- (10%) = Rs.13,750/- x 12 x 11 x 15% =

Rs.2,72,250/-. There is no medical evidence

explaining need of future treatment and expenses to

be incurred by the petitioner. If all these are summed

up, total compensation comes to:

Sl. No.                   Particulars                      Rs.
   1         Pain and sufferings                           60,000
   2         Loss of amenities and discomfort              60,000
   3         Medical expenses                               7,905
   4         Attendant charges                             12,500
   5         Food and nourishment                          10,000
   6         Travelling expenses                            2,000
   5         Loss of income during laid-up for 6           75,000
             months
      6      Loss of future earnings                     2,72,250
                             Total                      4,99,655





    (2017) 16 SCC 680

                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:1862

Total compensation comes to Rs.4,99,655/- as against

Rs.3,14,105/-, thereby enhancement of Rs.1,85,550/-.

This is the just compensation that the petitioner is

entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Adverting to the argument of the interest

component, no doubt that no banks will offer interest

at 8% p.a. on fixed deposits. The Tribunal has

exercised its discretion in awarding 8% interest p.a.

Since the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal,

it is not proper to meddle with it. Insofar as enhanced

compensation is concerned, it is just and proper to

award interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, the appeal