Karnataka High Court

K R Raju vs Mallikarjun on 30 July, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:29973
                                                    MFA No. 2694 of 2022




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2694 OF 2022(MV-I)
                BETWEEN:

                      K.R. RAJU,
                      S/O RANGAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                      R/AT KYATANAYAKANAHALLI,
                      KASABA HOBLI,
                      C.N. HALLI TALUK - 572 214.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
                AND:

                1.    MALLIKARJUN,
                      S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                      R/AT KYATANAYAKANAHALLI ,
                      MUDENAHALLI POST,
Digitally
signed by             KASABA HOBLI,
YAMUNA K L            CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK - 572 214.
Location:
High Court of   2.    TATA AIG INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Karnataka             BY ITS MANAGER,
                      PRESENT ADDRESS, NO.83,
                      2ND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
                      4TH 'B' BLOCK,
                      NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
                      KORAMANGALA,
                      BENGALURU - 560 034.
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                    R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED,
                    VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:29973
                                      MFA No. 2694 of 2022




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.941/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.
    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 12.01.2022

passed in MVC.No.941/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge and MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of

inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the

tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material placed before the Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:29973

4. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of

Rs.2,04,400/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed

the respondent - Insurance Company to pay the

compensation.

5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for the appellant that the income of the appellant assessed

by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation

awarded under different heads is not in accordance with

the material on record. The Tribunal has failed to assess

the disability in accordance to the opinion expressed by

PW.2-Doctor. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and

consequently enhance the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

respondent - Insurance Company contends that the

Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation

under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence,

both oral and documentary and the same does not call for

interference. On the basis of evidence adduced by PW.2-

NC: 2024:KHC:29973

Doctor, the tribunal has rightly taken the disability. Hence,

he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the

claimant has produced the documents as per Ex.P1 to

Ex.P133, out of which Exs.P1, P2 and P4 are the police

records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and

filing of the charge sheet against driver of the offending

vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence

against driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P3, P5 to P133

are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries

sustained by the claimant in the accident.

8. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and

income of the claimant, no material is placed before the

Court with regard to proof of income. In the absence of

the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

claimant to be Rs.10,250/- per month, whereas the Legal

Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of

NC: 2024:KHC:29973

Rs.11,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2017

Accordingly, Rs.11,000/- is taken as income in the present

case. The claimant was aged 43 years as on the date of

accident and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier

at '14', which does not call for interference.

9. PW.2-Doctor has opined the disability to the

extent of 11.7% to the whole body. However, the tribunal

has assessed the disability to the extent of 3% to the

whole body by dividing disability of 11.7% assessed by

PW.2-Doctor from 1/3rd i.e., 3.9% rounded off to 3%. I am

in agreement with the learned counsel for appellant that

the disability requires to be assessed at 11.7% as opined

by PW.2-Doctor. Therefore, the loss of earnings due to

disability would be Rs.2,16,216/- (Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 14

x 11.7%) as against Rs.1,46,880/- awarded by the

tribunal.

10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.98,300/- towards

treatment, hospitalisation, medicines and transportation,

NC: 2024:KHC:29973

which does not call for interference and the same is

retained.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.4,500/- towards loss of

income during laid up period. In view of this Court

enhancing the income to Rs.11,000/- per month, the

claimant would require atleast three months period to

recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day

activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to

Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000/- x 3) under this head.

12. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-

towards nourishments, food and miscellaneous

expenditure, which does not call for interference and the

same is retained.

13. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain,

suffering and trauma, whereas, the claimant was inpatient

for 14 days. I deem it appropriate to award an additional

amount of Rs.10,000/-. In all, the claimant would be

entitled to Rs.35,000/- under this head.

NC: 2024:KHC:29973

14. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to

award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

15. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation

towards future medical expenses. However, this Court

deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this

head.

16. In view of the above, the claimant would be

entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,52,516/- as

against Rs.2,04,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, as

mentioned in the table below:

               Heads                       Amount in Rs.
Treatment,            hospitalisation,          98,300-00
medicines and transportation
Nourishments          food        and             15,000-00
miscellaneous expenditure
Loss of income during laid up                     33,000-00
period
Loss of future earnings due to                  2,16,216-00
disability
Pain, suffering and trauma                        35,000-00
Loss of amenities                                 25,000-00
Future medical expenses                           30,000-00
               TOTAL                           4,52,516-00

                                             NC: 2024:KHC:29973

17. Accordingly, I pass the following: