Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimhamurthy V B vs Lakshminarasaiah on 6 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
MFA No. 6839 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6839 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY V.B.
S/O.BYATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT VAKKODI VILLAGE
SIDDARTHANAGARA POST
TUMAKURU CITY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAGADISH G.KUMBAR FOR
SMT.SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. LAKSHMINARASAIAH
S/O.LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT DODDANARAVANGALE VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU 572 107
Digitally 2. THE MANAGER
signed by B NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
LAVANYA
BRANCH OFFICE
Location:
HIGH KASTHURI MANSION
COURT OF BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES
KARNATAKA ABOVE CORPORATION BANK
M.G.ROAD
TUMAKURU 572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O/DATED 12.09.2023)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
MFA No. 6839 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.255/2020 BEFORE THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 19.04.2022
passed in MVC.No.255/2020 by the Court of II Additional
District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short 'the
tribunal'). The appeal is preferred on the premise of
inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the
tribunal.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with
consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
4. Brief facts of the case is as under:
On 11.08.2019 at about 5.35 p.m., the claimant was
proceeding from Heggere to Tumakuru on his TVS star city
motor bike bearing registration No.KA-06-HB-3351 on the
left side of NH 206 road, when he reached near Arch,
Bheemasandra, Tumakuru, one Bolero vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-27-M-5547 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant
and caused the accident. Due to which, the claimant fell
down and sustained grievous injuries and fractures. He
was immediately shifted to Siddartha Medical College and
Hospital, Tumakuru and later, he was shifted to
Government District Hospital, Tumakuru and thereafter to
NIMHANS, Bengaluru and later, he was shifted to Pinnacle
Hospital, Bengaluru, where he took treatment and for
better treatment, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, in all,
the claimant was inpatient for 15 days.
4.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and
healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was doing
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
agriculture and mason work and earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- p.m. Due to the permanent disability suffered,
the injuries sustained and the financial expenditure having
been met, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation
against the respondents.
4.2 On service of notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed written statement denying
the claim of the claimant including the age, avocation,
income and negligence attributed against the driver of the
offending vehicle. It was pleaded by the Insurance
Company that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Hence,
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
4.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as
PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
as Exs.P1 to P21. On the contrary, the respondents neither
got examined any witness nor got marked any document.
4.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.9,52,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed
respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount within one month.
4.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for appellant-claimant that the tribunal awarded meager
compensation and the disability being 45% to the whole
body as opined by the Doctor, the future prospects would
have to be awarded considering the injuries sustained by
the claimant, which are grievous in nature. Hence, he
seeks to enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company vehemently contends that the tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which
does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
claimant and respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that Exs.P1
to P8 are the Police records, which depict the filing of FIR
and laying of chargesheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle, which is not disputed or challenged.
Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed as against
the driver of the offending vehicle. The other documents at
Exs.P9 to P21, which are Bank passbook and case sheet
including Aadhar card of the claimant clearly depict that
the claimant sustained grievous injuries and spent huge
amount towards treatment.
8. Now coming to age, avocation, income and
disability sustained by the claimant, it is seen that the
claimant was aged 30 years as on the date of occurrence
of accident. Though it is pleaded by the claimant that he
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
was doing agricultural work and working as a mason and
earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-, nothing has been produced
before this Court to prove his income. Due to non
production of proof of income, the tribunal has taken the
income at Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Legal
Services Authority Chart prescribes notional income of
Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019.
Hence, the same is taken. The appropriate multiplier in the
present case would be '17', which is rightly taken by the
tribunal.
9. The Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has
opined the disability to an extent of 100% to the left upper
limb, 25% to the right lower limb and 45% to the whole
body. The tribunal accepting the version of the Doctor,
has taken the disability at 40% to the whole body.
However, the claimant sustained multiple rib fracture with
haemothorax, fracture medial and lateral malleolus right,
nerve root avulsion of left C5 C6 C7 C8T1 with
monoplegia, fracture left transverse process C7 and T1
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
vertebrae, fracture body and transverse process of L1
vertebrae and fracture transverse process T12 L2 L3 L4
vertebrae. On careful perusal of the opinion expressed by
PW.2-Doctor, it is seen that there is physical disability of
100% to the left upper limb. Therefore, the opinion
expressed by the PW.2-Doctor, the disability of 45% to the
whole body is required to be taken in the present case
rather than 40% taken by the tribunal. In view of there
being disability of 45% to the whole body, 40% of future
prospects will have to be added to the income in the
present case. Therefore, on the basis of all these aspects,
the claimant would be entitled to Rs.17,99,280/-
(Rs.14,000/- + 40% = Rs.19,600/- x 12 x 17 x 45%)
towards loss of future earning due to permanent disability
as against Rs.8,16,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
10. The tribunal awarded Rs.66,600/- towards
medical expenses, which does not call for interference as
the same is awarded based on the actual bills produced by
the claimant and it is retained.
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
income during treatment period. In view of this Court
enhancing the income from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.14,000/-, he
would require atleast five months period to recuperate and
to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore,
the claimant would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-
(Rs.14,000/- x 5) under this head.
12. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain
and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the
magnitude of the injuries sustained and disability
suffered at 45% to the whole body, this Court deems it
appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
13. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.70,000/-. In all,
Rs.90,000/- is awarded under this head.
14. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
charges. However, the claimant was inpatient for 15 days.
Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.15,000/- under this head.
15. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,40,880/- as
against Rs.9,52,600/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses 66,600-00
Loss of earning during treatment 70,000-00
period
Loss of future earning due to 17,99,280-00
permanent disability
Pain and suffering 1,00,000-00
Loss of amenities 90,000-00
Attendant charges, conveyance, food 15,000-00
and nourishment charges
TOTAL 21,40,880-00
16. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 19.04.2022
passed in MVC.No.255/2020 by the Court of II
Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru,
is modified;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9412
iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.21,40,880/- as against Rs.9,52,600/-
awarded by the tribunal;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the
respondent-Insurance Company within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order;
v) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper
verification;
vi) The original records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
vii) The terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal with regard to release of the amount
and Fixed Deposit are retained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
