Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandra Naik vs Shashank. C. K on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
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.3545 OF 2022(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3464 OF 2022(MV-I)
IN MFA No. 3545 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKSHMI BAI,
D/O LOKYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST, R/O BILKI TANDA,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHANK C. K.,
Digitally signed by S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CORPORATE COMPANY EMPLOYEE,
KARNATAKA R/O NO.436, 7TH CROSS,
SHASTRI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
GOLDEN HEIGHT, 4TH FLOOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
1/2 59 C CROSS 4TH MAIN BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.250/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT
BHADRAVATHI AND ADDITIONAL MACT(IV), PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 3464 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRA NAIK,
S/O LOKYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O BILKI TANDA,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PINCODE-577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHANK. C. K.
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
CORPORATE COMPANY EMPLOYEE,
R/O NO.436, 7TH CROSS,
SHASTRI NAGAR, BANGALORE,
PIN CODE-560028.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GOLDEN HEIGHT,4TH FLOOR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
1/2 59 C CROSS, 4TH MAIN BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.249/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-(IV), SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT
BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Chinmayee, who represents Sri.R.Gopal,
learned counsel on record for appellants in both the appeals.
Also heard Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy, who represents
Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2 in
both the appeals.
2. While MFA No.3464/2022 is filed challenging the
order that is rendered in MVC No.249/2020, MFA No.3545/2022
is filed challenging the order that is rendered in MVC
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
No.250/2020. The orders under challenge were rendered by the
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadravathi on
14.02.2022. Both the appeals are filed by the respective
claimants.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the
appellants are brother and sister and while they were
proceeding on a motorcycle on 25.12.2018, their motorcycle
was hit by a car, due to which they fell down and sustained
injuries.
Advancement of arguments and findings of this Court in
MFA No.3464/2022 which is connected to MVC
NO.249/2020:
4. Arguing the matter Sri.Chinmayee, representing the
appellant contends that the appellant Chandra Naik sustained
grievous injuries and became permanently disabled. Through
the evidence of CW1, the nature of injuries sustained and the
disability was established. However, the Tribunal awarded
meager sum as compensation under all heads and therefore, an
appeal is filed.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
5. Learned counsel also states that the appellant as an
agriculturist and by doing coolie work was earning substantial
sum, but the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.8,000/-
per month which is improper. Learned counsel also contends
that as the accident occurred in the year 2018 and as the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional
income as Rs.12,500/- per month, atleast the said figure
should have been considered by the Tribunal.
6. Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy, though argued at length
with regard to the merits of the matter and stated that the
compensation granted is justifiable, yet did not raise any
objection for taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per
month as sought for. Also the figure suggested is justifiable.
Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the notional
income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/- per month.
7. The Tribunal assessed the disability in respect of
whole body as 10% which is proper. Therefore, taking the
notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/- per month and
without disturbing the other parameters viz., application of
multiplier '15' and the disability being 10%, the compensation
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future
earnings is as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional monthly income 12,500-00
Annual income(12,500x12) 1,50,000-00
On applying the
appropriate multiplier 22,50,000-00
'15'(1,50,000x15)
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical
02,25,000-00
disability in respect of
whole body being 10%
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of right distal radius and ulna and also fracture of tibia
and fibula.
9. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have
attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of three
months. Therefore, loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500/- x 3).
10. Also as rightly contented, the Tribunal did not
award any sum for conveyance charges which the appellant
would have incurred. This Court considers desirable to award a
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
sum of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance charges. Thus, the
additional sum which the appellant is entitled to is as under:
Description Amount Amount Enhancement
awarded by awarded by
this Court Tribunal
Loss of future 2,25,000-00 1,44,000-00 81,000-00
earnings (2,25,000/- -
1,44,000)
Loss of 37,500-00 16,000-00 21,500-00
income during (37,500/- -
laid up period 16,000/-
Conveyance 05,000-00
charges
Total 1,07,500-00
Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,07,500/-
in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal.
Advancement of arguments and findings of this Court in
MFA No.3545/2022 which is connected to MVC
NO.250/2020:
11. It is not in dispute that the appellant Lakshmi Bai
sustained fracture of left tibia and also a soft tissue injury. Also
the appellant underwent operation during the course of
treatment. The disability assessed by CW1 in respect of her left
lower limb is 28%. The Tribunal rightly took th disability in
respect of whole body as 9%.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
12. Coming to the earnings of the appellant, though the
appellant projected that by doing agriculture and coolie work
she was earning substantial sum, no proof was produced to
that effect. Therefore, in the light of the discussion that went
on in the foregoing case regarding the notional income to be
taken, this Court considers desirable to take the notional
income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/-. Without disturbing the
other parameters as employed by the Tribunal, the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head
loss of future earnings is as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional monthly income 12,500-00
Annual income(12,500x12) 1,50,000-00
On applying the
appropriate multiplier 25,50,000-00
'17'(1,50,000x15)
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical
2,29,500-00
disability in respect of
whole body being 9%
Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,29,500/-
under the head loss of future earnings.
13. Coming to loss of earnings during laid up period, as
observed by the Tribunal, the appellant would not have
attended her normal pursuits at-last for a period of two
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
months. Thus, loss of earning during laid up period comes to
Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 2)
14. Also, as rightly projected by learned counsel for
appellant, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards
conveyance charges. This Court considers desirable to award a
sum of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance charges. Thus, the total
compensation which the appellant is entitled to is as under:
Description Amount Amount Enhancement
awarded by awarded by
this Court Tribunal
Loss of future 2,29,500-00 1,46,880-00 82,620-00
earnings (2,29,500/- -
1,46,880/-)
Loss of 25,000-00 16,000-00 09,000-00
income during (25,000/- -
laid up period 16,000/-
Conveyance 05,000-00
charges
Total 96,620-00
15. The foregoing discussion in both the cases reveals
that the appellant in MFA No.3464/2022 is entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,07,500/- in addition to the amount that is awarded by the
Tribunal as compensation. Likewise, the appellant in MFA
No.3545/2022 is entitled to a sum of Rs.96,620/- in addition
to the amount that is awarded by the Tribunal as
compensation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46442
MFA No. 3545 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 3464 of 2022
16. Thus, both the appeals disposed of with the
following
ORDER
i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadravathi, through
orders in MVC No.249/2020 is enhanced by Rs.1,07,500/-.
iii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadravathi, through
orders in MVC No.250/2020 is enhanced by Rs.96,620/-.
iv) The enhanced sum in both the appeals shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit.
v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum in both the appeals within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
vi) On such deposit, the appellants in both the appeals
are permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP, CT:TSM,
