Karnataka High Court
R Manjappa vs United Insurance Com Ltd on 31 May, 2024
-1-
MFA No. 853 of 2020
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A NO.853 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
R MANJAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOTEL WORK AND AGRICULTURE
R/O CHIKKAARAKERRE VILLAGE,
TQ JAGALUR, DISTRICT DAVANAGERE
NOW R/O CHADARAGOLLA VILLAGE
POST GUTTIDURGA
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 002
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SREE HARSHA A K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INSURANCE COM LTD.,
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally #273/1, MALLIKARJU TOWER
signed by PRAVASHI MANDIR ROAD
MADHURI S DAVANAGERE - 577 002
Location:
High Court of 2. G V MOHANKUMAR
Karnataka
S/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RIDER CUM OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REG. NO. KA17/Y-6063
R/O #106, INDUSTRIAL AREA
SRI RAMA NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
MFA No. 853 of 2020
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.01.2019, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND V ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANAGERE IN MVC
NO.316/2018 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WHICH IS
JUST AND REASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF
THE CASE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by petitioner under Section
173(1) of M.V.Act, seeking enhancement of the
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor
vehicle accident dated 11.10.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. FACTS: It is the case of the petitioner that on
11.10.2017, at about 5.30 p.m., he was getting down
from the bus at Chikkarakere Cross and proceeding
towards his village side. Respondent No.1 being the rider
of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-17/Y-6063 (for
short 'Offending vehicle') came in a rash or negligent
manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
the impact, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.
Despite prolonged treatment, petitioner is not completely
cured. As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle,
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and hence, the petition.
4. Despite due service of notice, respondent No.1
remained absent and as such, placed exparte by the
Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written
statement denying the involvement of the offending
vehicle in the accident and alleged that colluding with
respondent No.1, the offending vehicle is falsely implicated
to make wrongful gain. Respondent No.2 has also denied
the cause of accident, age, occupation, income and nature
of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and that they
have resulted in permanent partial disability. In addition,
respondent No.2 has further pleaded that at the time of
accident, the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding
a valid driving license and as such, respondent No.2 is not
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
liable to pay the compensation and prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. Based on these pleadings, Tribunal has framed
necessary issues.
7. Petitioner has examined himself as PW-1, and
one witness as PW-2. He has got marked Exs.P1 to 11.
8. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witness is
examined. However, Exs.R-1 and 2 are marked.
9. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition granting
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,46,334/- with interest
@8% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to pay the same.
The details of compensation granted are as under:
Heads Amount In Rs.
Pain and Suffering 40,000
Medical Bills 17,934
Loss of income during laid up period 18,000
Loss of future earning due to disability 1,40,400
Loss of amenities conveyance food 30,000
and nourishment and attendant
charges
Total 2,46,334
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
10. Respondents have not challenged the impugned
judgment and award.
11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment and award contending that in the light of injuries
sustained by the petitioner which resulted in permanent
partial disability, the whole body disability taken is on the
lower side. The notional income considered by the Tribunal
for calculating loss of earning capacity is on the lower side.
The compensation granted under the other heads is also
on the lower side and prays to allow the appeal and
enhance the compensation.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel
representing respondent No.2 supported the impugned
judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
13. Heard arguments and perused the records.
14. Having regard to the fact that respondents have
not challenged the impugned judgment and award, the
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
findings of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the
rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle and in
the said accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries
resulting in permanent partial disability has attained
finality.
15. Though in the claim petition, the petitioner has
claimed that at the time of accident, he was aged 39
years, based on the material placed on record, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the age of petitioner as 50 years
and therefore, the multiplier 13 considered is appropriate.
In the petition, the petitioner has claimed that he was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in the absence
of evidence to prove the same, the tribunal has taken his
notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. Since the
accident is of the year 2017, as per minimum wages, the
notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.11,000/-
per month. Based on the evidence regarding disability
sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly taken
the disability at 10% of the whole body. With these
components, compensation under the head 'loss of future
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
income' is Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 13 x 10% = Rs.1,71,600/-
as against Rs.1,40,400/- granted by the Tribunal.
16. Having regard to the nature of the injuries
sustained and the fact that it has resulted in disability, this
Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled
for compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head
'Pain and Suffering' as against Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.40,000/- under the head 'Loss of amenities' as against
Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal. However, based on
medical bills, Rs.17,934/- granted by the Tribunal under
the head 'Medical Expense' is correct and does not call for
interference.
17. Since the petitioner has suffered fracture, it is
reasonable to expect that he was under treatment for
three months. Therefore, at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per
month, for a period of three months under the head 'Laid
up period', petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum
of Rs.33,000/- as against Rs.18,000/- granted by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
18. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for total
compensation in a sum of Rs.3,22,534/- as against
Rs.2,46,334/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Pain and Suffering 40,000 60,000
Medical Bills 17,934 17,934
Loss of income during 18,000 33,000
laid up period
Loss of future earning 1,40,400 1,71,600
due to disability
Loss of amenities 30,000 40,000
conveyance food and
nourishment and
attendant charges
Total 2,46,334 3,22,534
19. Of course, petitioner is entitled for interest at
the rate of interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation.
20. As the insurer respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation with accrued interest and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:18460
(ii) Petitioner is entitled for compensation in a
sum of Rs.3,22,534/- as against
Rs.2,46,334/- granted by the Tribunal
together with interest at 6% p.a. on the
enhanced compensation.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with interest at
6% p.a from the date of petition till
realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited, if any) within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) As per order dated 31.05.2024, petitioner
is not entitled for any interest on the
delayed period on the enhanced
compensation.
(v) The Registry is directed to send copy of
this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
