Karnataka High Court
Sri.Chandrashekar C.T vs Nayaz Basha on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
MFA No. 4072 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4072 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C.T,
S/O THIPPERANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF CHIKKAMALURU VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATHISHA T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAYAZ BASHA,
S/O AMEER JAN,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
AASEEFA
PARVEEN RESIDING AT NO. 2603,
Location: HIGH BASHEERALLI, HOLALKERE ROAD,
COURT OF CHITRADURGA, CHITRDURGA DISTRICT- 577 501.
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., BALAJI TOWERS,
1ST FLOOR, ASHOKANAGAR,
B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101,
NOW REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
MFA No. 4072 of 2022
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED
06.02.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1349/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Sathisha.T learned counsel for the
appellant who appears through video conference. Also
heard Sri.Ashok N Patil learned counsel for respondent
No.2 who appears physically before this Court.
2. The claimant in M.V.C No.1349/2019 that stood
pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tumakuru and was disposed of through order dated
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
05.10.2021 is before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation.
3. Sri.Sathisha.T learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due
to the accident and became permanently and completely
disabled. Sufficient evidence was produced regarding all
aspects of the case including the disability, the occupation
and earnings. Though the appellant as a Laborer was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the tribunal took the
notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month which is
unjustifiable.
4. Learned counsel also states that the compensation
granted under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned
counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.
5. Sri.Ashok N Patil representing respondent No.2
contends that the tribunal having considered the totality of
evidence produced, took the disability in respect of whole
body as 10% and awarded justifiable sum under all heads.
However, learned counsel also states that as the accident
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
occurred in the year 2019, the figure adopted by the
Karnataka Legal Services Authority for settlement of the
claims for the relevant period i.e., Rs.14,000/- may be
considered. The submission thus made, appears
justifiable.
6. Therefore, the notional income for the appellant is
taken as Rs.14,000/- per month. Thought learned counsel
argued at length with regard to the disability assessed by
the tribunal, having considered the observations made
with regard to the evidentiary value of PW-2 and the other
evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the
tribunal did not err in taking the permanent disability in
respect of whole body as 10%. Thus, taking the disability
in respect of whole body as 10%, adopting the appropriate
multiplier '17' as the appellant was aged about 26 years
by the date of accident, the compensation which the
appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future
earnings on account of permanent physical disability in
respect of whole body is as under:-
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income 14,000-00
Annual income 1,68,000-00
On applying appropriate 28,56,000-00
multiplier 17
Loss of future earnings, 2,85,600-00
permanent physical
disability in respect of whole
body being 10%
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of right femur shaft and both bones of right leg,
lacerated wound over right parietal region and abrasions
over right knee joint and ankle joint. Also it is brought on
record that the appellant underwent a surgery in the form
of intra medullary nailing. Considering these facts, this
Court is of the view that the appellant would not have
attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of 3
months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.42,000/-(Rs.14,000 x 3). Also, considering the
nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that
the compensation granted by the tribunal under all other
heads except medical expenses require marginal
enhancement.
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
8. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is
entitled to under different heads is as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for pain and 50,000-00
sufferings
Medical expenditure 7,647-00
Towards food, extra 20,000-00
nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges
Loss of future earnings 2,85,600-00
Loss of income during laid 42,000-00
up period
Loss of amenities in life 25,000-00
Future medical expenses 15,000-00
Total 4,45,247-00
9. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.2,82,000 as compensation. However, the
foregoing discussion makes it clear that the appellant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.4,45,247/- as compensation. Thus,
the appeal is disposed of with the following
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru through orders
NC: 2024:KHC:46345
in M.V.C. No.1349/2019 dated 05.10.2021 is
enhanced from Rs.2,82,000 to Rs.4,45,247/-.
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.2 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, appellant is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
