Karnataka High Court
K Narayana vs The Manager on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
MFA No. 516 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
K NARAYANA,
S/O LATE K.C. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1331, KALLUPETE,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 672, 1ST FLOOR,
Digitally signed by 11TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK,
AASEEFA PARVEEN JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 11.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. MR. SURESHA H,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
NO. 3367, KONDAGADIYAPPA ROAD,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED
07.03.2023)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
MFA No. 516 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.3325/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-
1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shripad V Shastri learned counsel for the
appellant who appears through video conference. Also
heard Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy who represents
Sri.Pradeep.B, learned counsel on record for respondent
No.1.
2. An injured, who sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident, which ultimately resulted in amputation of left
leg below knee, is before this Court seeking enhancement
of compensation. He challenges the order that is rendered
by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.3325/2018 dated 22.09.2021.
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
3. Arguing on merits of the matter, Sri.Shripad V
Shastri representing the appellant contends that the
appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic
accident and took extensive treatment as inpatient at
different hospitals. However, the injury sustained to the
left leg could not be cured and ultimately there was
amputation of left leg below knee. The appellant was a
weaver by profession and was running handloom business.
Though sufficient material was produced in support of his
contention that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month,
yet the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.12,000/-
per month and awarded meager sum as compensation
under the heads 'loss of future earnings' and also 'loss of
income during laid up period'. Learned counsel further
submits that as the appellant lost one of his lower limbs,
he is unable to carry out his business activities and
therefore, the disability should be considered at least 90%
in respect of the whole body but the tribunal took the
disability as 30% which is improper.
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
4. Learned counsel also submits that no amount was
awarded as compensation by the tribunal towards loss of
amenities in life. Learned counsel also states that the
compensation granted under all other heads, except
medical expenses, is on lower side. Learned counsel
ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.
5. Contradicting the submission that is made by
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy
representing respondent No.1 submits that the appellant
failed to produce any proof to show that he was earning
Rs.50,000/- per month. Learned counsel also contends
that having considered the evidence produced, the tribunal
took the notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month which
is justifiable. Learned counsel also submits that the
disability assessed by the tribunal i.e., 30% to the whole
body is proper and thus the award needs no interference.
6. It is not in dispute that the injury sustained to the
left leg in a road traffic accident ultimately resulted in
amputation of the left leg below knee. Ex.P-8-certificate
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
issued by the Powerloom Service Centre discloses that the
appellant underwent basic powerloom weaving training.
7. In case the appellant was not a weaver by
profession, there is no requirement for him to undergo
such a training. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant
succeeded in establishing that he is a weaver by
profession. However, the appellant failed to produce any
proof with regard to his actual earnings by the date of
accident. Having considered the occupation of the
appellant, this Court is of the view that the notional
income of the appellant is required to be taken as
Rs.15,000/- per month.
8. Coming to the aspect of disability, the assessment
of PW-8 is that the disability in respect of lower limb is
80% and in respect of whole body is 40%. However, the
tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as
30%. Taking into consideration the occupation of the
appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant
would face extreme difficulty in attending his work as
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
weaver, in the light of amputation of one of the lower
limbs upto knee. Therefore, this Court considers desirable
to take the disability in respect of whole body as 35%.
9. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 48 years
by the date of accident. Therefore, 25% of the earnings
are required to be added towards future prospects as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Also as per the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Sarla Verma
and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592 case, the appropriate
multiplier to be applied is '13'. Thus, on applying these
parameters, the compensation which the appellant is
entitled to under the head loss of future earnings on
account of permanent physical disability to the whole body
is as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income 15,000-00
Annual income 1,80,000-00
Add 25% towards future 2,25,000-00
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
prospects
Apply appropriate multiplier '13' 29,25,000-00
Loss of future earnings, 10,23,750-00
permanent physical disability in
respect of whole body being
35%
10. Having considered the fact that the appellant
sustained grievous injury i.e., crush injury to the left leg
apart from injuries to the pelvic region and in the light of
amputation of left leg below knee during the course of
treatment, this Court is of the view that the appellant
would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of eight
months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.1,20,000/-. (Rs.15,000/- x 8). Also having
considered the nature of injuries sustained and the
disability with which the appellant was left with, this Court
is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is required to be
awarded towards loss of amenities in life. Also this Court
considers desirable to enhance the sum that is awarded as
compensation by the tribunal under all other heads in
proportion to the nature of injuries sustained, the
treatment taken and the disability. Thus, the
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
compensation which the appellant is entitled to under
different heads is as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for pain and 1,00,000-00
suffering
Medical expenses 3,95,435-00
Towards Food, nourishment 35,000-00
and attendant charges
Transportation charges 10,000-00
Loss of future earnings 10,23,750-00
Loss of income during laid 1,20,000-00
up period
For purchase of artificial 1,37,000-00
limb
Loss of amenities in life 50,000-00
Total 18,71,185-00
11. The tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.12,34,035/- as compensation.
However, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this
Court holds that the amount which the appellant is entitled
to receive as compensation, which can be termed to be
justifiable, is Rs.18,71,185/-. Therefore, the appeal is
disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:44952
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Principal
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in M.V.C. No.3325/2018 dated 22.09.2021 is
enhanced from Rs.12,34,035 to Rs.18,71,185/-.
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
