Karnataka High Court
Suryakanth @ Suresh vs Dileep And Anr on 29 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
MFA No. 200195 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200588 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200195 OF 2019 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200588 OF 2023(MV-I))
IN MFA NO.200195/2019:-
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
HIRANIKETAN NAGAR WASAI (W )
THANE, MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET
Digitally signed
KALABURAGI.
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURYAKANT @ SURESH
S/O SHIVAJI MORE
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR IN MUMBAI
R/O. BEELANGI, TQ: ALAND
DIST: KALABURAGI NOW AT ALGOOD VILLAGE
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-585401.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
MFA No. 200195 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200588 of 2023
2. DILIP S/O MARUTI MUKARAMBE
AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS AND
OWNER OF LUXURY BUS BEARING
NO.MH-04/G-9792
R/O. 103, BLDG NO. 12, SHALOM APTS.,
RAMDEV PARK ROAD,
MERA ROAD, THANE(E)-401107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. JAKA, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN IN MVC NO.302/2017.
IN MFA NO.200588/2023 :-
BETWEEN:
SURYAKANT @ SURESH
S/O SHIVAJI MORE
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR WORK AT MUMBAI (NOW NIL)
R/AT. BEELANGI, TQ: ALAND
DIST: KALABURAGI NOW R/AT. ALGOOD VILLAGE
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-585327.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DILIP S/O MARUTI MUKARAMBI
AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS AND
OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG.
NO.MH-04/G-9792
R/AT. 103, BLDG O. 12, SHALOM APTS.,
RAMDEV PARK ROAD,
MERA ROAD, THANE(E)-401107.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
MFA No. 200195 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200588 of 2023
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
HIRANIKETAN NAGAR VASAI (W )
THANE, MAHARASHTRA STATE,
NEW REPRESENTED BY
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 14.11.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST
AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR, BENCH AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN
MVC NO.302/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- along with interest @9%
per annum awarded by the tribunal.
2. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The
fact that the claimant suffered an amputation above his
knee (at 1/3rd regional the left tibia) is also not in dispute.
The bus in which the petitioner was traveling was
admittedly insured by the appellant.
3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry which
tried to over take the bus and caused the accident. It is
also the case of the Insurance Company that this assertion
of the owner of the vehicle was also supported by the
claimant in as much as the claimant also stated that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver
of the lorry. In my view, having regard to the fact that the
insurer had insured all the occupants of the bus, the
question as to who was negligent would be of no
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
consequence in relation to the injuries suffered by an
occupant of bus. In that view of the matter, there is no
merit in the appeal in MFA No.200195/2019 filed by the
Insurance Company and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
4. The claimant is also in appeal seeking for
enhancement. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence
has awarded the following sums as compensation:
Compensation
Sl. As awarded by
No. Nature of Heads the Tribunal
(In Rs.)
Loss of earning capacity due to
1. 8,64,000/-
disability
2. Medical expenses 3,15,125/-
Loss of income during laid up
3. 32,000/-
period
4. Pain and suffering 20,000/-
Towards transportation and
5. 20,000/-
nutrition food
6. Towards artificial limb 50,000/-
7. Towards marriage prospects 50,000/-
8. Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Towards attendant during
9. 15,000/-
treatment
Total 13,76,125/-
Rounded off to 13,76,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of the
doctor / PW-2, has assessed the disability of the claimant
at 50% as the doctor has assessed the permanent physical
disability at 80% to the 80% to the whole body. In my
view, this assessment is just and proper and does not call
for interference.
6. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income,
notionally at Rs.4,000/- Since there is no credible
documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly
income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the
monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year,
would be Rs.10,250/-.
7. Since the claimant has suffered 80% permanent
physical disability to the whole body and was aged about
21 years as on the date of the accident, 40% of the same
(Rs.4,100/-) is required to be added to the said income as
future prospects, as per the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680, and
the resultant income would thus be Rs.14,350/-.
8. As the claimant was aged 21 years, as per the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a
multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently,
the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.24,79,680/-
(Rs.14,350 x 12 x18 x 80%) towards loss of future earnings
due to disability.
9. The sum of Rs.3,15,125/- awarded towards medical
expenses by the Tribunal, being based on documentary
evidence, does not call for modification and hence it is
affirmed.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-
towards food, nourishment, conveyance, attendant and
other incidental charges. Since, the claimant was
hospitalized for about 15 days, it would be appropriate to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the said head, as
against a sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.32,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during
the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to
Rs.61,500/- (10,250 X 6 months).
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of amenities. In my view, since the claimant
was hospitalized for about 15 days and underwent an
amputation, it would be just and appropriate to award a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
13. The sum of Rs.3,15,125/- awarded as medical
expenses by the Tribunal, being based on documentary
evidence, does not call for modification and hence
confirmed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
14. Having regard to the length of the stay of the
claimant in the hospital and the amputation suffered, the
claimant would also be entitled to 'loss of future income at
Rs.1,00,000/-.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards artificial limb. Since, the claimant is admittedly
suffered amputation above his knee, it would be
appropriate that he would require to use artificial limb to
remaining of his life, it would be appropriate to award a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards artificial limb.
16. The sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded as marriage
prospects by the Tribunal, does not call for modification
and hence confirmed.
17. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified
and the claimant would be entitled to the following
compensation:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
Compensation
Compensation
as awarded
Sl. as awarded
by the
No. Nature of Heads by this Court
Tribunal
(In Rs.)
(In Rs.)
Loss of earning
1. capacity due to 8,64,000/- 24,79,680/-
disability
2. Medical expenses 3,15,215/- 3,15,215/-
Loss of income
3. during laid up 32,000/- 61,500/-
period
4. Pain and suffering 20,000/- 1,00,000/-
Transportation,
attendant and
5. 35,000/- 50,000/-
nutrition food
6. Artificial limb 50,000/- 1,00,000/-
Marriage
7. 50,000/- 50,000/-
prospects
Loss of amenities
8. 10,000/- 1,00,000/-
in life
Loss of future
9. ----- 1,00,000/-
income
Total 33,56,395/-
18. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total
compensation of Rs.33,56,395/- as against Rs.13,76,000/-
along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum
from the date of petition till its realization except for the
delay period of 1419 days in filing the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5441
19. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation awarded within two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
20. The deposit and release of the enhanced
compensation amount shall be made as per the ratio
adopted by the Tribunal.
21. The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA
No.200588/2023 is accordingly allowed in part.
22. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to
the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: VD
