Karnataka High Court

R Muthuraju vs Alumelu Mangamma on 31 July, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30255
                                                   MFA No. 2947 of 2022




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2947 OF 2022 (MV-I)

              BETWEEN:

                    R MUTHURAJU
                    S/O LATE M RAMASWAMY,
                    AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                    R/AT JALAMANGALA ROAD,
                    HANUMANTHANAGARA,
                    RAMANAGARA TOWN- 562 159
                                                            ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)
              AND:

              1.    ALUMELU MANGAMMA
                    MAJOR,
                    R/AT NO.7/7.
                    ANANDANILAYA, KASTURBA NAGAR,
                    RUDRAPPA GARDEN,
                    MYSURU ROAD,
                    BENGALURU-560 029

Digitally     2.    TATA AIG GEN INS CO LTD
signed by B         BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LAVANYA             JAMBOO KESHAVA ARCADE,
Location:           MILLERS ROAD,
HIGH                BENGALURU-560 052
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                              ...RESPONDENTS
              (BY SRI.RAVI S.SAMPRATHI .,ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
                  NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 20.07.2023)


                   THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
              JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.03.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC
              NO.227/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
              AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,           PARTLY
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:30255
                                     MFA No. 2947 of 2022




ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    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 3rd January

2022 passed in MVC. No.227/2010 on the file of the

Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (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. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of

Rs.2,03,360/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed

the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay

the compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

4. 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. It is also contended

that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of the

doctor in the proper perspective and the disability

assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and future

prospects has not been awarded so also no compensation

is awarded under the head of future medical expenses.

The compensation awarded under different heads is not in

accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he

seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the

compensation.

5. 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 these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of

the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant

and learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that

though the occurrence of accident, involvement of

vehicles, injuries sustained by the claimant due to the

accident are disputed, same have been proved and

established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P54 and

negligence is rightly attributed against driver of the

offending vehicle. Ex.P3 to Ex.P54 are the medical

records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the

claimant in the accident.

7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,

income and disability sustained by the claimant, no

material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of

income except stating that the claimant was working as a

Mason. It cannot be disputed that Mason cannot produce

any material of proof with regard to his income unless he

is working for big organization or agency. In the absence

of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the income of

the claimant to be Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas the

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional

income of Rs.5,500/- per month for the accident of the

year 2010. Accordingly, Rs.5,500/- is taken as income in

the present case. The claimant was aged 55 years as on

the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would

be '11', which is rightly taken by the Tribunal and the

same does not call for interference.

8. Doctor is examined as PW.2, who has opined

disability to an extent of 12 % to whole body. Placing

reliance on the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed disability at 12% to the whole body and

the same does not call for interference.

9. In view of the above, loss of income due to

disability would be Rs.87,120/- (Rs.5500 x 12 x 11 x

12%) as against Rs.63,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards

pain and agony, which does not call for interference and

the same is retained.

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.55,000/- towards

medical expenses, attendant charges, food and

nourishment. The claimant has produced medical bills

totally worth Rs.44,101/- and adduced evidence in support

of the same. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate

to award Rs.44,101/- towards medical expenses. The

claimant was in-patient for 20 days. Therefore,

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

attendant charges.

12. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has not

awarded compensation. I deem it appropriate to award

Rs.25,000/- under this head.

13. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered

by the claimant, atleast ten months is required to

recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities.

In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.5,500/-

per month, Rs.55,000/- (Rs.5500 x 10)) is awarded

under this head.

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

14. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation

towards future medical expenses. I deem it appropriate

to award Rs.10,000/- under this head as some implants

have to be removed.

15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards

conveyance. I deem it appropriate to retain the same.

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

entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,76,221/- as against

Rs.2,03,360/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in

the table below:

Sl.         Head of compensation                Amount of
No.                                           compensation
                                                 awarded

 1    Loss of income due to disability        Rs.87,120-00

 2    Pain and agony                          Rs.40,000-00

 3    Medical expenses                        Rs.44,101-00

 4    Food, nourishment and                   Rs.10,000-00
      attendant charges

 5    Loss of income during laid up           Rs.55,000-00
      period

 6    Future medical expenses                 Rs.10,000-00

                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:30255





7          Towards conveyance                       Rs. 5,000-00

8          Loss of amenities                        Rs.25,000-00

                         Total                    Rs.2,76,221-00

17. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 3rd January 2022 passed by the tribunal in MVC No.227/2010, is modified.

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,76,221/- as against Rs.2,03,360/- awarded by the tribunal alongwith interest at 6 % per annum.

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6 % per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to

NC: 2024:KHC:30255

the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification.