Karnataka High Court
Sri. Benakappa vs Sri. B. Singappa on 3 June, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
MFA No. 8678 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MFA NO. 8678 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BENAKAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESSMAN
R/O BULLAPURA
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577201.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. G M NATARAJ - ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMATHY AND:
KANNAN
1. SRI. B. SINGAPPA
Location:
High Court of S/O KENCHAPPA
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O 60 FEET ROAD
9TH CROSS
VINOBANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
NEAR AMEER AHMED CIRCLE
RUB BUILDING, B.H.ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
MFA No. 8678 of 2017
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA .J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri G M Nataraj, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri Ravish Benni, learned counsel who
represents respondent No 2. Notice to respondent No.1
stood dispensed with.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - VI,
Shivamogga in MVC No.145/2014 dated 10.02.2016. This
is a claimant's appeal.
3. Seeking enhancement of compensation, learned
counsel Sri G.M.Nataraj submits that the appellant
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and
became permanently disabled. Though, the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
appreciated the entire evidence, yet awarded a meager
sum as compensation. Therefore, seeking enhancement of
compensation the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel submits that the appellant was
earning handful sum and was maintaining his family by the
date of accident. Due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, he is unable to do any work. Learned counsel
also states that the evidence of medical officer produced
establishes the nature of disability and therefore by
allowing the appeal the sum claimed may be awarded as
compensation.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
the Tribunal has awarded excess amount as compensation.
He further states that the Tribunal took permanent
disability as 40% which is highly excessive and the
Tribunal ought to have taken permanent disability not
more than 25%. Learned counsel also states that
compensation awarded under other heads is also
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
excessive. Therefore, the order rendered by the Tribunal
needs no interference.
6. A perusal of the material available on record
reveals that the Tribunal which dealt with the matter,
awarded compensation under the following heads :
SL.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000-00
2 Medical Expenses Rs.80,000-00
3 Attendant, food & Rs.20,000-00
Nourishment charges etc
4 Conveyance Charges Rs.15,000-00
5 Loss of earning capacity Rs.3,16,800-00
6 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000-00
7 Future medical expenses Rs.30,000-00
TOTAL Rs.5,36,800-00
7. The appellant by examining himself as PW.1,
examining the doctor who treated him as CW.1, exhibiting
the exhibits P9 to P22 and Ex.C1 to C3 tried to establish
that he is entitled to sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
compensation. However, the Tribunal by scrutinizing the
entire material brought on record came to the conclusion
that the amount which the appellant is entitled as
compensation is Rs.5,36,800/-.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
abrasion on left shoulder, abrasion on left knee, abrasion
on left side of forehead, fracture of left proximal tibia and
fracture of right distal radius. It is also not in dispute that
abrasion on left shoulder, abrasion on left knee and
abrasion on left side of forehead are simple in nature and
fracture of left proximal tibia and fracture of right distal
radius are grievous in nature. By the evidence of CW.1,
the appellant succeeded in establishing that he took
treatment as inpatient from 05.10.2013 to 11.11.2023 and
underwent surgery and thereafter he was discharged and
again he was admitted on 05.12.2013 and has discharged
on 19.12.2023. CW.1 who treated and examined the
appellant has stated in his evidence that the appellant has
42% of disability in respect of his left lower limb which is
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
permanent in nature and he has also got 19% disability in
respect of his right upper limb which is also permanent in
nature. Having considered the evidence produced, the
Tribunal came to a conclusion that permanent disability in
respect of whole body is 40%. We are of the considered
view that the assessment thus made needs no interference
as the same is justifiable.
9. On going through the material available on record,
more particularly the impugned order it is found that the
notional income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000 p.m.
needs interference. The appellant failed to establish his
actual occupation and earnings by the date of accident.
The accident occurred in 2013. The Karnataka State Legal
Service Authority is taking the notional income for the
relevant period as Rs.8,000/- p.m. We are of the
considered view that it is desirable to take the said figure
into consideration for calculating the compensation. In
case the same is taken, the amount that can be awarded
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
as compensation under the head of loss of earnings would
be Rs.4,22,400/- (8000 x 12 x 11 x 40%).
10. The compensation awarded under the head of
loss of amenities needs enhancement as the appellant
sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and
underwent surgery and as submitted by CW.1, he is still
suffering. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head
of loss of amenities i.e., Rs.25,000/- requires to be
enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. So far as the amount awarded
under other heads i.e., pain and sufferings, medical
expenses, attendant food and nourishment charges and
future medical expenses needs no interference. Thus, the
enhancement of compensation would be Rs.1,30,600/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only).
11. In the light of the forgoing discussion, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB
ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - VI, Shivamogga though
orders in MVC NO.145/2014 dated 10.02.2016 is enhanced
by Rs.1,30,600/-.
iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
iv) Respondent No 2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum along with interest within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RJ
