Karnataka High Court
Mahadevaswamy vs Rajendrakumar P S on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
MFA No. 3556 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3556 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVASWAMY,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA @ MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O BACHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 408.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAMOD R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJENDRAKUMAR P S,
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGE NOT KNOWN,
Digitally R/O PANDITHAHALLI VILLAGE,
signed by MALAVALLI TALUK,
NANDINI R MANDYA DISTRICT-571 408.
Location:
High Court 2. THE MANAGER,
of Karnataka
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KAMBLI BUILDING, M.C.ROAD,
MANDYA-571 408.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
19.08.2024)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
MFA No. 3556 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.354/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
M.A.C.T., MALAVALLI, 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 MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Pramod R., learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC.No.354/2016, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Malavalli dated 30.11.2016, the petitioner is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
The petitioner has filed a claim petition contending that on
04.02.2016, after supplying milk to the petty shop, he was
waiting to cross the Malavalli Kollegala road at about
07.45 pm, when the motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-EB-
0712 came in a rash and negligent manner and collided
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
with the petitioner causing injuries to him. He was shifted
to Government Hospital, Malavalli and then to JSS
Hospital, Mysuru, where he was admitted for treatment.
The petitioner sustained fracture of distal 1/3rd of tibia and
fibula of left leg and was treated by ORIF and he was
inpatient for 10 days. The petitioner contended that he
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by milk vending and
therefore, adequate compensation may be granted to him
3. On being served with the notice, respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who were the owner and insurer of the
vehicle appeared before the Tribunal. The petition was
resisted by contending that there was no such negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary
and therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.
4. After framing appropriate issues, evidence was
let in the form of a testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1
to 68.
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
5. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation under the following heads:
AMOUNT
PARTICULARS
(IN RS.)
Pain and suffering 30,000/-
Medical Expenses 72,000/-
Attendant, Nourishment, Food,
10,000/-
Transport
Future Medical Expenses 10,000/-
Permanent disability 65,520/-
TOTAL 1,87,520/-
6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
enhancement.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the Tribunal erred in holding the income of
the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month despite the
contention being Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted
that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under
the head of 'loss of amenities in life' and the compensation
for 'loss of income during laid up period'.
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
submits that the compensation awarded is adequate and
defends the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Perusal of the evidence on record would
disclose that the petitioner had sustained fracture of tibia
and fibula and had undergone surgeries. The Doctor who
assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and he
deposed that there is 26% disability to the whole body.
The Tribunal held that PW.2 was not the Doctor who
treated the petitioner and therefore, it scaled down the
disability to 7% and awarded the compensation by
assessing the notional income of the petitioner at
Rs.6,000/- per month. It is relevant to note that fracture
of tibia and fibula would definitely result in certain amount
of disability. The petitioner was aged about 50 years and
except the fracture of tibia and fibula, there were no such
other discernible injury, which would contribute for the
disability. It is pertinent to note that considering the age
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
of the petitioner, the disability has to be taken at 1/3rd of
the disability to the limb and when PW.2 had stated that
there is disability at 26% and even after assessing the
embellishment that could have been done by PW.2, it
would have been proper for the Tribunal to assess the
functional disability at 8%. Therefore, the disability of the
petitioner has to be considered at 8% and as such, the
compensation under the head of 'loss of income due to
permanent disability' has to be calculated. The guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat
prescribed a notional income of Rs.9,500/- for the year
2016. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held
that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general
conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the
petitioner is considered at Rs.9,500/- per month.
Therefore, by taking multiplier of '13' for the age of 50
years, the compensation under the head of 'loss of income
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
due to permanent disability' is calculated as
Rs.9,500/- X 12 X 13 X 8% = Rs.1,18,560/-.
10. As a consequence, the 'loss of income during
the laid up period' also needs to be enhanced and by
holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his work
for a period of two months, under the said head the
quantum of compensation calculated as Rs.9,500/- X 2
Rs.19,000/-.
11. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'
and therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the
said head. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the had of 'pain and suffering' also needs
enhancement and the same is awarded at Rs.40,000/-.
12. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified
compensation under different heads as below:
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
AMOUNT
PARTICULARS
(IN RS.)
Pain and suffering 40,000/-
Medical Expenses 72,000/-
Attendant, Nourishment,
10,000/-
Food, Transport
Future Medical Expenses 10,000/-
Permanent disability 1,18,560/-
Loss of amenities in life 20,000/-
loss of income during the
19,000/-
laid up period
TOTAL 2,89,560/-
Less awarded by Tribunal 1,87,520/-
Enhancement 1,02,040/-
13. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,02,040/- with interest and
therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of
Rs.1,02,040/- in addition to what has been awarded by
NC: 2024:KHC:43170
the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till its deposit.
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within
a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
NR/-
