Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivaraju S vs Chandru N Gouda on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
MFA No. 5127 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5127 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHIVARAJU S.,
S/O. SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT MYLANAYAKANA HOSAHALLI,
CHANNAPTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H. T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANDRU N. GOUDA,
S/O. NARAYANA THIMMAPPAGOUDA,
R/AT. NO 268-A, KALASANMOTE,
NEAR HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
HOSAPATNA, HONNARVAR TALUK,
Digitally signed by UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581342.
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH 2. THE MANAGER,
COURT OF RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KARNATAKA RGIC NO. 28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA C., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 25.11.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
MFA No. 5127 of 2021
MVC NO.4105/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU SCCH-18 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarujuna Reddy, learned counsel
who represents Sri.Lakshminarayan C., learned counsel on
record for respondent No.2.
2. The appellant who sustained injuries in a road
traffic accident moved a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru, which dealt with the case as MVC No.4105/2019
rendered orders on 08.02.2021 awarding a sum of
Rs.8,16,754/- as compensation. Projecting that he is entitled
for a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
3. Arguing the matter representing the appellant,
Sri.Jagadeesh H.T. contends that the appellant sustained four
grievous injuries due to the accident apart from two other
simple injuries. He took extensive treatment, but finally he was
left with disability. Learned counsel submits that sufficient
proof was produced regarding the aspect of disability. Learned
counsel also submits that PW3 spoke in clear terms that the
disability in respect of all the three limbs is 72% and in respect
of whole body is 36%, but the Tribunal took the disability in
respect of whole body as 25%. Learned counsel further
contends that the appellant as an Electrician was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal took the notional
income of the appellant as Rs.9,500/- per month which is
improper. Learned counsel also contends that the compensation
granted by the Tribunal under all heads is on lower side and
therefore an appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to
enhance the compensation to the extent claimed.
4. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel
representing respondent No.2, on the other hand submits that
the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is proper. Learned
counsel also states that the appellant failed to produce any
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
proof regarding his occupation and income by the date of
accident. Learned counsel further contends that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal under all heads is indeed
exorbitant and therefore, the present appeal is not
maintainable.
5. By all the evidence that is brought on record, the
appellant established that he sustained super condylar fracture
of the midshaft of tibia, facture of shaft of proximal 1/3rd of
fibula, fracture of lateral tibia. Undoubtedly, through the
evidence of PW3 the appellant established that the disability in
respect of the limbs is 72% and whole body is 36%. However,
considering the totality of evidence produced, the Tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 25% which needs no
interference.
6. Coming to the occupation and earnings of the
appellant, the appellant failed to produce any substantive proof
with regard to his occupation and earnings by the date of
accident. However, as the accident occurred in the year 2019
and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is taking the notional income for settlement of claims
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
as Rs.14,000/- per month, hence as sought for by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the notional income of the appellant
is taken as Rs.14,000/- per month.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged
about 32 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 40% of the
earnings of the appellant are required to be added towards
future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Also the appropriate
multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592 is '16'. Thus, 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:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional monthly income 14,000-00
Annual income(14,000x12) 1,68,000-00
Add 40% towards future
2,35,200-00
prospects (1,68,000+40%)
On Applying the
appropriate multiplier
37,63,200-00
'16'(2,35,200x16)
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical
09,40,800-00
disability in respect of
whole body being 25%
Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,40,800/-
towards loss of future earnings.
8. In the light of the grievous injuries sustained, the
treatment taken and disability with which the appellant is
ultimately left with, this Court is of the view that the appellant
would not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a
period of five months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up
period comes to Rs.70,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 5).
9. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained
and the treatment taken and in the light of the foregoing
discussion, this Court is of the view that, the appellant is
entitled to compensation under following heads:
Sl. Heads of compensation Amount in
No Rs.
1 Compensation for pain and
75,000-00
suffering
2 Towards food, extra
nourishment, attendant 40,000-00
and conveyance charges
3 Medical expenses 1,92,254-00
4 Loss of future earnings 9,40,800-00
5 Loss of income during laid 70,000-00
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
up period
6 Loss of amenities in life 20,000-00
7 Future medical expenses 30,000-00
Total 13,68,054-00
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.8,16,754/- as compensation. However, the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to is
Rs.13,68,054/-. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the
following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC
No.4105/2019 dated 08.02.2021 is enhanced from
Rs.8,16,754/- to Rs.13,68,054/-.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
