Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rangappa S/O Hanamantappa vs Sri. Chandrashekhar S/O ... on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
MFA No. 101305 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101305 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA
YENDIGERI @ GUMMAGOL, AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O. KIRESUR, TALUKA: HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. SHARANABASAPPA INDI, AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-28/A-7277,
R/O. AMIR TALKIES ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
Digitally BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
signed by SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON
JAGADISH T R
Location: MARKET, HUBBALLI.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C NO.291/2013 DATED 25/02/2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT HUBLI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
MFA No. 101305 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured/appellant seeking
for enhancement of compensation challenging the
judgment and award dated 25.02.2015 passed in
M.V.C.No.291/2013 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT., Hubli (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
that on 19.12.2012, the appellant was proceeding in TATA
Ace vehicle along with goods. At that time, the driver of
the said vehicle drove the same in a moderate speed by
following the traffic rules. At about 8:30 AM, a vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-28/A-7277 driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner without following the
traffic rules came towards the left side of the lorry and
dashed, resulted in accident, as a result of which, the
appellant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He
was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli and he was inpatient
for more than 60 days and incurred substantial amount for
recovery. It is averred that the appellant/injured was aged
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
about 35 years at the time of the accident and before the
accident, he was doing business and agricultural activities
and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and his entire family
was physically and mentally dependent on the
appellant/injured. It is also averred that, due to the
injuries, the appellant suffered permanent disability and is
unable to do agricultural activities and unable to earn
money. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking
enhancement for the road accident suffered by him.
3. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company appeared
and filed statement of objections by denying the age,
income and avocation of the injured and medical expenses
of the appellant. Sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. During the trial, the appellant examined himself
as PW1 and examined Dr. Prashantkumar Hanumanthappa
T.S. as PW2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P78.
The respondents have not adduced any evidence.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
5. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by
awarding global compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the
appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the present appeal is filed by the appellant/injured seeking
for enhancement of compensation.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/injured and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
7. Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/injured submits that the
Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating the
evidence available on record and proceeded to award
meager compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. She
submits that the award of the compensation by the
Tribunal is required to be interfered by re-determining the
compensation to the appellant/injured taking note of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
evidence available on record. It is submitted that the
appellant was aged about 35 years at the time of the
accident and was doing agricultural activities and business
and used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month. She
argues that the appellant has taken treatment in KIMS
Hospital, Hubli for more than 60 days as inpatient. The
treated Doctor has been examined as PW2 who has clearly
stated that the appellant has suffered four injuries and
suffered disability of 30%. The Tribunal without looking
into the evidence of PW2 has proceeded to hold that the
appellant has failed to place on record the Wound
Certificate and awarded meager compensation to the
appellant/injured. She submits that the appellant has
suffered four major injuries and the Doctor has opined
that implants are inserted in his body which are required
to be removed by further surgeries. Without taking note of
these facts and evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to award
meager compensation. She seeks to allow the appeal by
modifying the impugned judgment and award of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
Tribunal by appropriately awarding the compensation to
the appellant/injured.
8. Per contra, Sri. S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company
supports the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that the appellant admittedly has not
placed the Wound Certificate on record, as it is a basis for
determining nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. In
the absence of said document, the Tribunal has rightly
come to the conclusion that the appellant has suffered
simple injuries and proceeded to award compensation.
Thus, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the
memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal and the certified copies of the oral evidence
and the exhibits made available by the learned counsel for
the appellant during the course of arguments.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
10. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
11. Answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative'
for the following reasons:
12. The parties to the proceedings does not dispute
that the appellant has suffered road accident on
19.12.2012 and sustained grievous injuries. It is not in
dispute that the appellant was taken treatment at KIMS
Hospital, Hubli. On perusal of the oral evidence of
PW1/appellant, PW2/Dr.Prashantkumar Hanumanthappa
T.S. and on perusal of Ex.P5/Discharge Sheet, Ex.P6/Case
Sheet, Exs.P7 to P11/X-ray films, Ex.P77/Disability
Certificate, it is clear that the appellant has sustained
grievous injuries and taken treatment as an inpatient for a
period of more than 60 days in KIMS Hospital, Hubli.
Admittedly, the appellant/injured was treated in the KIMS
Hospital, Hubli from 19.12.2012 to 16.02.2013 as
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
inpatient. From the Discharge Summary issued by the
KIMS Hospital, Hubli it is evidence that the appellant has
suffered following injuries:
"(1) CLW over Rt.knee 12 X 3 CM, bleeding, contamination.
(2) Fracture Rt.middle and lower 1/3 junction
(3) CLW over 2X5 cm. over parital region.
(4) Abdominal injury."
13. This Court after closely scrutinizing the
evidence of PW2, Ex.P5/Discharge Sheet, Ex.P6/Case
Sheet, Exs.P7 to P11/X-ray films and Ex.P77/Disability
Certificate, is of the considered view that the appellant has
suffered four injuries referred supra.
14. PW2 in his evidence has categorically stated
that the appellant has suffered permanent physical
disability to the whole body to an extent of 30% to 32%
and he needs to undergo two further surgeries to remove
the implants. However, he has not given any reasons for
arriving to such conclusion. Hence, taking note of the oral
testimony of PW2 and medical evidence available on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
record, this Court deems it appropriate to assess disability
of the appellant/injured at 15% to the whole body for the
purpose of determining the compensation.
15. The appellant claimed that he was doing
agricultural work and business activities and was earning
more than Rs.10,000/- per month, however, he has not
placed any evidence to substantiate the same. This Court
placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority assesses the
income of the appellant at Rs.6,500/- per month for the
accident that occurred in 2012. The appellant/injured was
aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. Hence,
the appropriate multiplier would be '16' for the purpose of
determining the compensation. Thus, loss of future income
due to disability is recomputed as under:
Rs.6,500 (income) x 12(months) x 16(multiplier) x 15%
(disability) = Rs.1,87,200/-
16. This Court with the assistance of the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
for respondent No.2/Insurance Company calculates the
actual bills of medical expenses, which comes to
Rs.8,910/-.
17. The evidence of PW2 clearly indicates that the
appellant/injured has suffered injuries and implants are
inserted in his body and he needs to undergo further two
surgeries to remove such implants. Taking note of the said
evidence, this Court deems it appropriate to award
compensation under the head of 'Future Medical Expenses'
of Rs.50,000/-.
18. Thus, in all, the claimant shall be entitled to
modified compensation under the following heads:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Towards pain and suffering 40,000/-
Towards Medical expenses 8,910/-
Future Medical expenses 50,000/-
Food, diet, conveyance and attendant 30,000/-
charges
Loss of future earnings due to disability 1,87,200/-
Loss of amenities 40,000/-
Loss of income during laid-up period 26,000/-
(Rs.6,500 X 4 months)
Total 3,82,110/-
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,82,110/- as against Rs.25,000/-
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
19. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,82,110/- as against
Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation of
Rs.3,57,110/- shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of payment.
d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from today.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4912
e) On such deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of the appellant/claimant.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
