Karnataka High Court

Mohan Kumar vs Ramesh K on 5 March, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:9165
                                                      MFA No. 2463 of 2020




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2020 (MV-I)
                 BETWEEN:

                      MOHAN KUMAR,
                      S/O BASAVALINGAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                      R/AT HULIHALLI,
                      HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
                      TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                 (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

                 AND:
                 1.   RAMESH K,
                      S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                      R/AT KANDIKERE
                      VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
                      CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
Digitally             TALUK - 572 214.
signed by V
KRISHNA          2.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
Location: High        COMPANY LIMITED,
Court of              BY ITS MANAGER,
Karnataka             RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
                      B H ROAD,
                      TIPTUR - 572 202.
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. SHANKARA REDDY C., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                      VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS
                      DISPENSED WITH;)
                                   -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:9165
                                             MFA No. 2463 of 2020




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.648/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND    SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 13.11.2019 passed by Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (for short 'the Tribunal') in

MVC.No.648/2016. This appeal is founded on the premise of

inadequate and meagre compensation. Hence, the appellant

seeks enhancement of compensation.

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

status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

That on 21.03.2016, the claimant was travelling on his

Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-

44-J-0609 along with one Honnaraju on returning to his native

place Hulihalli from Huchagondanahalli along NH-206, when he

reached near Huchagondanahalli, at that time a Car bearing

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

registration No.KA-14-N-5894 came from Tiptur side in a rash

and negligent manner and in a high speed dashed against the

Motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the occurrence of the

accident and impact of the vehicle, claimant sustained grievous

injuries and shifted to Govt. Hospital Tiptur, where he took first

aid treatment and later shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru,

where he was inpatient for 19 days and he under went

operation for both bones of right leg were fractured and his

right foot was crushed and amputated. The claimant under

went skin grafting and bed ridden for one month. Due to the

injuries suffered and disability sustained and financial

expenditures, the claimant filed claim petition seeking

compensation.

3.1. On service of notice, respondent No.2 filed

statement of objection denying the claims of the claimant and

sought for dismissal of claim petition. Respondent No.1 did not

filed statement, though appeared in the matter. Respondent

No.2 - Insurance Company, denying the claim of the claimant

including age, avocation, income and sought for dismissal on

the ground that the claimant has not come before the Court

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

with clean hands and suppressed his income for making

unlawful gain.

3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

relevant issues for consideration.

3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and

Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P32.

On the other hand, respondents did not adduce their evidence

either orally or documentary.

3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.2,61,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition

till realization and also held that the respondent No.2 -

Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the

claimant and directed to deposit the compensation amount with

interest within one month.

3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court

challenging the impugned judgment and award.

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellant-claimant is that, the tribunal has committed an error

in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for interference

at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement

of compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and

reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference.

Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for claimant and learned

counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the

impugned judgment and award of the tribunal and produced

the documents Exs.P1 to P32. The police records at Exs.P1 to

P6, which depicts filing of FIR and charge sheet against the

driver of the Car, same is not disputed or challenged. Hence,

negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the

offending Car. Exs.P7 to P32 describes the injury suffered,

financial expenditure incurred on the disabilities of the claimant

along with photograph.

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

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

and disability of the claimant, as on the date of occurrence of

accident, the claimant was aged about 30 years. The

appropriate multiplier '17' is taken, which is correctly taken by

the tribunal and income has taken by the tribunal at Rs.4,500/-

p.m. Whereas the Legal Service Authority chart prescribes

notional income of Rs.9,500/- for the year 2016. Hence,

income is to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

8. Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has not

expressed the percentage of disability with evidence, is quiet

narrating the fracture of both the bones and the amputation of

the right foot. The tribunal has assessed the functional

disability of 15%. Learned counsel for the claimant relies on

the schedule prescribed in the Employees Compensation Act,

with regard to amputation of the right foot, which prescribes

disability at the rate of 50%. Hence, I agree with the

contention put forth by learned counsel for the claimant, the

disability in the present case due to the amputation of the right

foot requires to be taken at 50%. In view of the disability to an

extent of 50% due to the amputation of right foot, claimant

would be entitled to future prospects. Age of the claimant

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

being 30 years, would be entitled to 40% towards future

prospects. Hence, loss of future income due to disability would

be Rs.13,56,600/-(Rs.9,500/- + 40% = Rs.13,300/- x 12 x

17 x 50%).

9. Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded

Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to

award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, the claimant

would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under this head.

10. Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.30,000/- is

awarded on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimant.

Same is retained.

11. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the

tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/-. It is stated that the claimant

was inpatient for 20 days. Hence, the claimant would require

atleast four months period to recuperate and to get back to his

normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be

entitled to Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500/- x 4) under this head.

12. Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges

tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Same is retained in view

of claimant being inpatient for 20 days.

NC: 2024:KHC:9165

13. Towards loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded

Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to

award additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. In all, the claimant

would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under this head.

14. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled

to a total compensation of Rs.15,84,600/- as against

Rs.2,61,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

                  Head                        Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income                                Rs.13,56,600-00
Pain and suffering                                      Rs.70,000-00
Loss of Amenities                                       Rs.70,000-00
Loss of income during laid up                           Rs.38,000-00
period
Food,          conveyance     and                       Rs.20,000-00
attendant charges
Medical expenses                                        Rs.30,000-00
                  TOTAL                            Rs.15,84,600-00

15. Accordingly, I pass the following: