Karnataka High Court

Kumari. Mayuri Dilip Patil vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 October, 2024

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB
                                                       MFA No. 101956 of 2018




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                            DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
                                             PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                               AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                         MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101956 OF 2018

                   BETWEEN:

                   KUMARI. MAYURI DILIP PATIL
                   AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR
                   (NOW NIL) AND STUDENT,
                   R/O. KANGARAL B.K., TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-14.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                        REP. BY S.P.BELAGAVI,
                        S.P.OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590001.

                   2.   KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE
Digitally signed
                        DEPARTMENT (KGID) MOTOR BRANCH,
by MANJANNA E           BENGALURU, NO.19, STORY VISHVESHWARAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                CENTRE (MAIN BUILDING), DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD                 BENGALURU, R/Y BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
BENCH                   KGID BELAGAVI-VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR,
Date: 2024.10.25
14:31:38 +0530          BELAGAVI-590001.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDL. GOVT. ADV FOR R1 AND R2)

                         THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
                   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED
                   IN MVC NO.1988/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
                   DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
                   CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
                   PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
                   COMPENSATION.
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB
                                            MFA No. 101956 of 2018




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                   AND
                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been

filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award

dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned IV Additional District

Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC

No.1988/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated

are that, on 27.07.2015, the claimant along with

Prabhavati Karoshi was riding the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-22-EE-1951 towards Channamma Circle

and when they reached Hindalaga Bridge, NH-4-sevice

road, opposite to Shantesha Motors, Vaibhav Nagar,

Belagavi, at about 19:15 hours, at that time, the driver of

the Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-22-G-331 came from

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the

petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous

injuries and was admitted as an indoor patient in KLE

Hospital Belagavi from 27.07.2015 to 01.09.2015,

02.10.2015 to 06.10.2015, 20.10.2015 to 25.10.2015 and

from 09.11.2015 to 13.11.2015 and undergone six

operations wherein implants were inserted. She lost her

sight and took treatment at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and

underwent operation to her right eye and artificial eye was

fixed and she was on follow up treatment at both the

hospitals. Hence, the claimant filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was

pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It

was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on

account of rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

3. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2

appeared through DGP. Respondent No.1 filed objections

which has been adopted by respondent No.2 denying the

averments made in the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the

evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award

has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the

claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.27,11,000/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and held

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation, however, respondent No.2 being the

insurer of Tata Sumo Vehicle directed the 2nd respondent

to deposit the entire compensation within three months

from the date of the judgment. Being dissatisfied with the

compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed.

5. Sri. Yash Nadakarni, learned counsel appearing for

the claimant has contended that, at the time of the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years. She has

completed MBA and computer course. To that effect, she

has produced Exs.P-22 and P-23. The Tribunal has

assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-

which is on the lower side. Secondly, he contended that

since the claimant has suffered 60% disability to the whole

body, she is unable to do her day to day work. In view of

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Erudhaya

Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd1 and the

decision of this Court in the case of Punyashree H. v. Dr.

Jayamma and another , the claimant is entitled to future

prospects. Hence, he sought for enhancement of

compensation.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents contended that at the time

of the accident, the claimant was a non-earning member;

she had completed her MBA and computer course,

AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4284

2020 SCC ONLINE KAR 1967

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional

income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-per month. He

further contended that since the claimant has failed to

establish her income, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded

future prospects. Therefore, he contended that,

considering the injury suffered by the claimant, the over

all compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused

the impugned judgment and award and the original

records.

8. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered

injuries in a road traffic incident that occurred on

27.07.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving by the

driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-22-G-331.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffering the

following injuries:

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

"1. comminuted fracture of mid shaft of the tibia and fibula lower 3rd with compartment syndrome on right side.

2. Displaced fracture of distal phalanx on right hand little finger.

3. Fracture of first metatarsal right foot."

9. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged

about 23 years. She had completed MBA as per Ex.P-22

and also completed computer course which is evident from

Ex.P-23 certificate. Considering her educational

qualification and the age of the claimant, we are of the

opinion that monthly income of the claimant has to be

assessed at Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries,

the claimant has suffered the aforesaid injuries. The

Tribunal considering the evidence of the Doctor and the

medical records, has assessed the whole body disability at

60%. Due to the disability, the claimant is unable to do

her day to day work and it affects her future avocation.

Considering the decision of the Apex Court in Erudhaya

Priya's case(supra) and the decision of Co-ordinate bench

of this Court in Punyashree's case(supra), the claimant is

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

entitled for future prospects. In view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi3 since the claimant was

aged about 23 years, 40% of the income has to be added

towards future prospects and the multiplier applicable to

that age group is '18'. Accordingly, the loss of future

earnings due to disability has to be assessed as follows:

Rs.12,000+Rs.4,800/-(40%)x12x60x18/100=Rs.21,77,280/-

10. So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads is concerned, the same is just and

reasonable.

11. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed

compensation as follows:

(2017) 16 SCC 680

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

As awarded As awarded by the by this Court Compensation under Tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.) different Heads

Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-

Medical expenses

Food, nourishment, 25,000/- 25,000/-

conveyance and attendant 10,000/-

10,000/-

 charges                                                      30,000/-
                                             30,000/-

 Physiotherapy treatment                     50,000/-         50,000/-

 Medical expenses                           6,00,000/-      6,00,000/-

 Future medical expenses                    2,00,000/-      2,00,000/-

 Loss of future income due to              12,96,000/-     21,77,280/-
 disability

 Loss of earning due to laid up             1,00,000/-      1,00,000/-
 period

 Loss of amenities in life                  3,00,000/-      3,00,000/-
 inclusive of marriage
 prospects

                             Total     27,11,000/-        35,92,280/-

12. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and

award dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned IV Additional

District Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB

No.1988/2016 is modified to the extent that the claimant

is entitled to total compensation of Rs.35,92,280/- with

interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till

realisation.

The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation amount with interest from within

six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.