Karnataka High Court
Shri.Mohsin @ Mahasin S/O.Md.Hussain ... vs The Divisional Manager on 29 May, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
MFA No. 102353 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102353 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MOHSIN @ MAHASIN S/O.MD.HUSSAIN KHAN,
AGE : 32 YEARS, OCC : GOLDSMITH, NOW NIL,
R/O : CHAK KARISHARAMPUR, DAKSHINAPARA,
HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL STATE, PIN CODE:712705.
NOW AT MULLA GALLI, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M.S.R.T.C. SANGLI DIVISION,
(MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION)
SANGLI, STATE : MAHARASHTRA
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V PIN CODE NO : 416416.
Location: HIGH - RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI A.S.R. NAMAZI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL is FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1180/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATHANI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
MFA No. 102353 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of
both learned counsel, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging the judgment and award dated 02.01.2020 in
M.V.C. No. 1180/2018 by the learned Prl. Sr. Civil Judge &
AMACT, Athani (for short 'Tribunal'), the claimant is before this
Court seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the
Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
4. Brief facts leading to this appeal is that the petitioner has
filed petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act for grant of
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road
traffic accident that occurred on 22.05.2018 at 9.30 am when
petitioner was moving on the side of Sangli-Kolhapur road in
front of Kabade Hospital and was hit by MSRTC bus bearing
no.MH-12-EF-6777 which was driven in rash and negligent
manner by its driver. It is stated that the petitioner was hale
and healthy, aged about 30 years, working as goldsmith in
Sangli and earning Rs.18,000/- per month as a skilled labour.
Because of the injuries suffered in the accident, he has become
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
permanently disabled. There is amputation of the metatarcel
bone of right leg. Petitioner is unable to walk and stand and
lost complete work and earning capacity. Petitioner also lost
his complete left leg and he has to use artificial limb in future.
He has to change the same for every 2 to 3 years and requires
more than Rs. 5 lakhs for artificial limb. On all these grounds
sought for enhancement of compensation.
5. In response to notice, respondent appeared and filed its
objection denying the averments made in the petition and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. To prove the case of the petitioner, two witnesses were
examined as PW1 and PW2. Documents are marked as per
Exs.P.1 to P.70. On closure of petitioner side evidence,
respondent examined one witness as RW1. Having heard the
arguments of the counsel and on hearing the records the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,31,364/- with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. Being aggrieved
by the impugned judgment and award, the claimant has
preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
7. Since the judgment and award of the Tribunal is not
questioned by the respondent, the only question that needs to
be answered is:
Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation?
8. Our answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative'
for the following reasons.
REASONS
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal ought to have considered the permanent physical
disability of the appellant to the extent of 100% as against
60% considered by the Tribunal. In view of the appellant
sustained amputation of both legs below the knee with stump,
the appellant is unable to do any kind of work let alone the
work of Goldsmith which he was performing prior to the
accident.
10. At the time of evidence when the petitioner was produced
before the Court, the Tribunal has recorded the health condition
of the petitioner as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
" ರರ ಇಬ ರ ಸ ಯ ಂ ಎ ಂ
ಲಯದ ಒಳಗ! " #ರಗ! $ಸ%&'.
ಎರ) *+ಗ, ಕತ /ಸಲ0 12 345 " ರ3
'ಂ6 #' 78/9 :ತರ 'ಂ6 ;+ ದ< =ಯ>?
ಉತ ರ =ೕ 45 B C D."
11. PW1, the injured Mr. Mohsin @ Mahasin son of Md.
Hussain Khan has deposed in his evidence that prior to the
accident he was doing Goldsmith work and he was earning
Rs.18,000/- per month. After amputation of two legs now he is
unable to do the Goldsmith work and permanently disabled.
Exs.P.65 and P.66, the photos of the petitioner reveals as to
the condition of the petitioner.
12. PW2-Dr.S.R.Angadi, Orthopedic Surgeon has assessed
disability at 40% to the right lower limb as well as 40% to the
left lower limb, in view of the amputation of both legs as per
Ex.P.62-disability certificate.
13. Considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with
disability certificates and other documents and also keeping in
mind the Schedule-1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 so also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Another1 and also the in
Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand & others2 we are of the
considered opinion that it is just and proper to assess loss of
earning capacity of the petitioner as 100%.
14. With regard to the income of the petitioner is concerned,
the petitioner has not produced any legal evidence as to his
income. In such a situation this Court would apply the notional
income indicated in the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority for assessing notional income. The
accident is of the year 2018 and as per the chart the notional
income of the injured would be assessed at Rs.11,750/- per
month, which would meet the ends of justice.
15. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Others3 40% of the assessed income should be added
towards loss of future prospects. Age of the petitioner was 30
years at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier is
'17'. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
(2011) 1 SCC 343
AIR 2020 SC 776
AIR 2017 SC 5157
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
Rs.33,55,800/- (Rs.11,750/- + Rs.4,600/- (40%) x 12 x 17)
towards loss of future income.
16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries
and 100% disability of the petitioner, it is just and proper to
award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. With regard to loss of income during laid up period is
concerned, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
Since this Court has assessed disability of the petitioner to the
whole body at 100%, that is to say that the claimant cannot
earn his income for the rest of his life, then awarding of
compensation towards loss of income during the laid up period
becomes redundant and accordingly the claimant is not entitled
for compensation under the head of loss of income during laid
up period.
18. Considering the nature of injuries, pain and suffering and
the permanent disability, it is just and proper to award
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities.
19. With regard to the attendant charges, food and
nourishment, conveyance charges, medical expenses and
expenses for artificial limb, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.25,974/-, Rs.1,27,150/-
and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, it is just and reasonable and
needs no interference.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimant is entitled for
compensation as under:
1. Pain & suffering 1,00,000.00
2. Disability 33,55,800.00
3. Loss of amenities 1,00,000.00
4. Towards attendant charges, food 1,00,000.00
and nourishment (as awarded by
the Tribunal)
5. Conveyance charges (as awarded by 25,974.00
the Tribunal)
6. Medical expenses (as awarded by 1,27,150.00
the Tribunal)
7. Expenses for artificial limbs (as 1,00,000.00
awarded by the Tribunal)
Total 39,08,924.00
For the aforesaid reasons, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.39,08,924/- as against Rs.20,31,364/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
Accordingly, we answer the above point 'partly in the
affirmative'.
21. In the result, proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and awarded passed by the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant
would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.39,08,924/- as against Rs.20,31,364/-awarded by
the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till date of payment;
d) Respondent shall deposit the entire compensation
amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
e) On such deposit, the said amount shall be apportioned
in favour of the claimant as per the award of the
Tribunal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7135-DB
f) Registry to transmit the records to the tribunal
forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bvv
