Karnataka High Court

Bhimanna S/O Shankrappa Sajjan @ ... vs Praveen And Anr on 25 July, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB
                                                       MFA No. 202167 of 2019




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                             PRESENT

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                                               AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202167 OF 2019 (MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:

                      BHIMANNA
                      S/O SHANKRAPPA SAJJAN
                      @ SAJJANSHETTY,
                      AGE: 37 YEARS,
                      OCC: ELECTRONIC
                      (TV & RADIO REPAIR) WORK
                      AND AGRI, NOW NIL,
                      R/O: DIGGI VILLAGE,
                      TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
                      NOW AT NEAR BASAVESHWAR
Digitally signed by   KALYANMANTAPA, GANDHI CHOUK ROAD,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ              YADGIR, TQ. & DIST: YADGIR.
DHUTTARGAON
                                                                ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              (BY SRI. SIDRAMREDDY VENKANNA PARADDY, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

                      AND:

                      1.   PRAVEEN
                           S/O MALLAPPA KATTI,
                           AGE: 32 YEARS,
                           OCC: BUSINESS,
                           R/O: ROHINI MICRONUTRIENT INDUSTRIES,
                           MUDHOL ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR,
                           TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587 312.
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB
                                     MFA No. 202167 of 2019




2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     STATION ROAD, SVP CHOWK,
     KALABURAGI- 585 104.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND AWARD
COMPENSATION OF RS.20,61,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST OF
9% P.A. BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M
AT YADGIR, IN MVC NO.235/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
         AND
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal directed against the

judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.235/2017 dated

06.05.2019 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Yadgir (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short),

wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed

by the appellant/petitioner and awarded compensation of

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

Rs.4,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of petition till its realization.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this

appeal are as under:

On 15.07.2017, the claimant/petitioner was

proceeding towards his village Diggi from Shahapur on a

Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-02/R-7869 on

Shahapur-Shorapur Main Road. When the petitioner was

moving near Hiremath petrol pump of Shahapur Town, one

Eicher Tempo HGV vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-

48/3742 came from rare side with high speed and dashed

to the Motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the

vehicle of the petitioner turn turtle on the road. As such,

he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter,

he was shifted to Government General Hospital and then

he was shifted to GSHs Fracture and Ortho Hospital as

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

inpatient. The jurisdictional Police registered the FIR

against the driver of the HGV vehicle based on the

complaint lodged by the petitioner. Since the offending

vehicle was covered by insurance policy of respondent

No.2/Insurance Company. The petitioner filed the claim

petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the

injuries sustained in a road accident.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued to respondent

Nos.1 and 2, they appeared before the Tribunal and filed

their statement of objections by denying the averments

made in the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence.

In order to prove the case, the petitioner No.1 himself

examined as PW.1 and got marked 22 documents as

Exs.P1 to P22. Though the respondents not examined any

witness on their behalf, but got marked 3 documents as

Exs.R1 to R3.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

6. After assessment of oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition

filed by the petitioner. The challenge to the same is lis

before this Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri

Sidramreddy Venkanna Paraddy for appellant and learned

counsel Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company.

8. On perusal of the records, the coverage of the

insurance policy to the offending vehicle is not in question

in this case, as such the only point for consideration is the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is

the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the petitioner has sustained permanent

disability in the said accident and the doctor has issued

the disability certificate as per Ex.P9, which depicts that

the petitioner has sustained 30% of permanent disability

in spite of that the Tribunal has assessed only 14%

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

disability which is on lower side. It is contended that

income of the petitioner was not properly taken into

consideration by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded

in other heads is on lower side. With these grounds, he

prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance

company supports the impugned judgment and prays to

dismiss the appeal.

10. On careful perusal of the evidence available on

record though PW.2 is a doctor issued wound certificate as

per Ex.P5, so also, the disability certificate at Ex.P9,

depicts that the petitioner sustained permanent disability

to the extent of 30% to the whole body. In such

circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred

by taking into consideration disability of the petitioner only

to the extent of 14%, as such, we held that the disability

of the petitioner to be enhanced to 20% instead of 14%.

The Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner

at Rs.7,000/- p.m. Though the petitioner claim that he

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

was earning more than Rs.30,000/- p.m. However he has

failed to produce any such documents to substantiate the

same. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to

consider the income as per the Chart prepared by the

Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is

of the year 2017, notional income has to be considered at

Rs.10,250/- p.m.

11. The petitioner is aged about 35 years at the

time of accident. The multiplier applied to his age group as

per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is '15'. Hence, the

petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,250 X 12X 15 X 20/100 =

Rs.3,69,000/- under the head of 'loss of future income'.

12. Hence, we re-assess the compensation under

the following different heads:

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5304-DB

Compensation awarded in Rs.

            Particulars                 By the
                                                     By this Court
                                       Tribunal

    Pain and suffering                 Rs.30,000/-      Rs.60,000/-

    Medical expenses               Rs.1,80,729/-      Rs.1,80,729/-

    Food and nourishment               Rs.10,000/-      Rs.30,000/-

    Attendant charges                   Rs.5,750/-      Rs.10,000/-

    Conveyance charges                 Rs.20,000/-      Rs.37,000/-

    Loss of income during laid          Rs.5,750/-      Rs.30,750/-
    up period
    Loss of future income          Rs.1,76,400/-      Rs.3,69,000/-

    Towards loss of amenities,
    life comforts and                  Rs.10,000/-      Rs.50,000/-
    expectancy of life
    Total                        Rs.4,39,000/-       Rs.7,67,479/-

    Enhanced by this Court                 Rs.3,28,479 /-




     13.   The     petitioner     is     entitled    for    a   total

compensation of Rs.7,67,479/- as against Rs.4,39,000/-

awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled

for an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,28,479/- with

interest @ 6% p.a.