Karnataka High Court
Shri Siddappa S/O Maruti More vs Shri Latif S/O Imam Satvilkar on 29 October, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
MFA No. 105717 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH 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. 105717 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. MARUTI MORE,
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC: MASON AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAILUR, TQ. KHANAPUR,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590018.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. LATIF S/O. IMAM SATVILKAR,
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NANDGAON, TQ. KANKAVALI,
DIST. SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA-416602.
2. THE MANAGER,
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
R
Location: High
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST BELAGAVI 590001.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 3. THE MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADMAJA S. TADAPATRI, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.73/2017 ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, KHANAPUR, DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
MFA No. 105717 of 2023
01.10.2022, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 VENKATESH NAIK T)
The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging
the judgment and award dated 01.10.2022 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Khanapur, in
M.V.C. No.73/2017 whereunder, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.15,50,630/- with interest at 6% per annum
and prayed for enhancement of the same.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal
are as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant
in a road traffic accident that took place on 15.05.2016, when
the claimant was proceeding on his Bajaj Motor from Kankavali
road towards Nandgaon Circle, at about 21.15 hours, the driver
of the rickshaw vehicle bearing No.MH-07/S-5447 came from
opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle of the claimant and caused the accident. Due to the
said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injury to his right
leg, right knee and thigh and back and all over the body. He
was shifted to Government Hospital, Kankavali and thereafter
he was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi, where he
underwent two major operations and his right leg was
amputated. He spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards
medical treatment and other incidental expenses. The claimant
was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was aged 25
years at the time of accident. He was doing mason and
agriculture work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due
to the accidental injuries, he suffered physically, mentally and
financially. He is not in a position to do any work. Due to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
accidental injuries his marriage life is in darkness and he
become permanently physically disabled.
4. After service of notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3
appeared through their counsel and filed objections resisting
the claim and denied all averments made in the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record at
Exs.P1 to P30, oral evidence of PW1, PW2, RW1 and Ex.R1 and
R2, has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,50,630/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
award, the claimant is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has
contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.15,50,630/-, which is on the lower side. The claimant
suffered 100% permanent physical disability, however the
Tribunal considered 50% disability which is on lower side.
However, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospectus
of the claimant, as the claimant at the time of accident was
aged 27 years. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered
the future prospectus at 40%. Further, the Tribunal has not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
awarded fair and reasonable compensation in respect of other
heads. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurer contended that the Tribunal has considered permanent
physical disability at 50%, which is fair and reasonable one and
hence, the Tribunal has rightly declined to grant future
prospectus at 40% to the claimant. Further the Tribunal
considered the nature of injuries and other material available
on record and has rightly granted compensation on other
heads, which is just and reasonable one. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned judgment and award, the following point
that would arise for our consideration in this appeal:
"Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable
or does it call for enhancement?"
9. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of
the accident on 15.05.2016. The very fact is that when the
claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle, the driver of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
rickshaw came from opposite side in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant and
hence, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg,
right knee and thigh and back and all over the body.
10. As per the oral evidence of PW1 and on perusal of
Ex.P.1-FIR, Ex.P2-complaint, Ex.P.3-charge sheet and Ex.P.5-
panchanama, the driver of auto rickshaw caused the accident.
As per the contentions of the claimant, at the time of accident,
the claimant was doing mason and agriculture work and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, he has not
produced any material before the Tribunal. The accident is of
the year 2016 and as per the circular issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal
Services Committee, Dharwad, the notional income in the
absence of any proof of the income of claimant to be taken at
Rs.8,750/-per month. The Tribunal has taken the notional
income of the claimant at Rs.8,750/- per month, which is fair
and reasonable one.
11. Towards 'loss of future income' is concerned, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,92,500/- considering the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month. The doctor has
assessed the disability at 75% to the whole body as per the
Gazette of India, 2018 Notification, however the Tribunal
considering the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act
considered disability at 50%. The disability considered by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. The evidence of PW2 discloses
that the claimant has suffered amputation of right leg below
knee. The claimant has suffered serious disability in which he
has lost his right leg below knee joint level. Therefore, taking
note of nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and also his
avocation, we are of the considered view that it would be just
and appropriate to re-assess the disability of the claimant at
90% to the whole body, which would meet the ends of justice.
12. The claimant was aged about 27 years at the time
of the accident. Since the disability is assessed at 90% to the
whole body, the claimant would be entitled to an addition of
40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, in terms
of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish
Vs. Mohan & others1. There is no dispute with regard to
2018 ACJ 1011
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
applicability of multiplier of 17 to his age group. Thus, loss of
future income of the claimant is recalculated as under:
Rs.8,750+40%=Rs.12,250x12=Rs.1,47,000
Rs.1,47,000x90/100x17=Rs.22,49,100/-
13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards medical
attendant, nourishing food and other incidental expenses,
Rs.5,25,630/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards
pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of basic
amenities and Rs.52,500/- towards loss of income during laid
up period, which in our view are just and reasonable one and
no interference is called for in this regard.
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following
compensation:
HEADS Rs.
Loss of future income on account of 22,49,100/-
permanent disability
Medical expenses 5,25,630/-
Medical attendant, nourishing food, and 20,000/-
other incidental expenses
Loss of income during laid up period 52,500/-
Pain and sufferings 40,000/-
Loss of basic amenities 20,000/-
Total 29,07,230/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
15. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed
in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant is entitled to total compensation of
Rs.29,07,230/- as against Rs.15,50,630/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
d) Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
e) In view of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed
by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for
interest on the enhanced compensation for
the delayed period of 340 days in filing the
appeal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15808-DB
g) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
h) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SMM/ct-an
