Karnataka High Court
Raju A vs The Manager United India Insurance Co ... on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
MFA No.6339 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6339/2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAJU .A
S/O LATE APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. GANJAM, K.G.ROAD
S.R.PATNA TOWN AND TALUK
MANDYA DIST - 571 438.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADV.,)
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
KANTHARAJ URS ROAD
MYTHIR ORCADE
NEAR SARASWATHI TALKIES
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSORE CITY - 570 001.
2. K.V. NAGARAJU
S/O S.K. VEERABHADRAPPA
MAJOR, R/A NO.7, IST CROSS
SANJEEVINI NAGARA
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS
V.N. POST, BANGALORE - 570 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1
V/O DTD: 26.09.2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
MFA No.6339 of 2023
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.609/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar.T learned counsel for the appellant
as well as Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna learned counsel for respondent
No.1 insurance company.
2. The claimant is before this Court seeking
enhancement of compensation and disputing the findings given
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in the
orders rendered in MVC No.609/2019 dated 27.10.2021. On the
ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic
accident and became permanently disabled, the appellant filed
a petition claiming compensation of Rs.21,20,000/- in total.
The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of
Rs.5,47,002/- as compensation attributing contributory
negligence to an extent of 30% upon the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
3. The only grounds that were urged and argued by
Sri.Vijay Kumar T learned counsel for the appellant are in
respect of the amount awarded under the head loss of future
earnings and the amount awarded under the head loss of
income during laid up period. Learned counsel states that the
appellants sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and
took treatment as inpatient for 20 days and thereafter as out
patient for 6 to 8 times. Though the Doctor i.e., PW2 assessed
the disability as 40%, the Tribunal took the disability as 30%
and awarded a meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel
also states that the Tirbunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/-
only under the head loss of earnings during laid up period and
the appellant could not attend his normal pursuits for more
than a year. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
4. The submission that is made by
Sri B.A.Ramakrishna learned counsel for respondent No.1 on
the other hand is that the Tribunal taking into consideration the
totality of evidence has awarded a just sum as compensation
and therefore, the award needs no interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
5. A perusal of record reveals that the Tribunal has
awarded a total sum of Rs.7,81,432/- as compensation divided
under following heads and thereafter ordered deduction of
Rs.2,34,430/- towards the contributory negligence of 30% on
part of the appellant.
Head of compensation Amount
Rs.40,000/-
1. Pain, shock and agony
Rs.2,92,152/-
2. Medical expenses
3. Food, diet, Nourishment,
conveyance, and other incidental Rs.20,000/-
expenses
4. Loss of income during treatment Rs.28,000/-
period
5. Towards Future medical Rs.10,000/-
expenses
6. Loss of income towards Rs.3,71,280/-
permanent disability
7. Disappointment and discomfort Rs.20,000/-
and loss of amenities
Rs.7,81,432/-
TOTAL
Less 30% of amount due to Rs.2,34,430/-
Contributory negligence
6. The Tribunal assessed the whole body disability as
13% which needs no interference. The age of the petitioner is
taken as 26 years which also needs no interference. The
Tribunal for the reasons best known has not added future
prospects. 40% of the actual earnings are required to be added
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. This Court
does not find any grounds to interfere with the notional income
that is taken by the Tribunal as Rs.14,000/- per month.
Also the appropriate multiplier which is applied i.e., '17'
requires no interference. Thus, the compensation which the
appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings
due to permanent physical disability is as under:
Amount
Description
In Rs.
Notional monthly income 14,000-00
Annual Income (14,000X12) 1,68,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects 2,35,200-00
(1,68,000+40%)
Applying appropriate multiplier '17' 39,98,400-00
13% being permanent physical 5,19,792-00
disability, loss of future earnings is
7. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,71,280/- under
the head loss of future earnings. Thus, the enhancement will be
Rs.1,48,512/- (Rs.5,19,792/- - Rs.3,71,280/-).
8. Coming to loss of earnings during laid up period,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/- only. It is borne
by record that the appellant sustained fracture of left Tibia and
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
through a surgery implants were fixed. It is also brought on
record that the appellant took treatment at NIMHANS Hospital
for the head injury sustained by him. There is no denial of the
fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient as about 20
days and also took treatment as out patient for 6 to 8 times.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not
have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of four
months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.14000X4). The Tribunal as earlier stated has
awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/- under the head loss of income
during treatment period. Thus, the enhancement would be
Rs.28,000/- (Rs.56,000-28,000).
9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the amount
which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum
awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,76,512/-
(Rs.1,48,512+Rs.28,000). Out of enhanced sum, in the light of
the contributory negligence on part of the appellant being 30%,
the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,558.40/-
rounded to Rs.1,23,560/- only (70% of Rs.1,76,512/-) to the
appellant. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:35911
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna through
orders in MVC No.609/2019, dated 27.10.2021 as
against respondent Nos.1 & 2 is enhanced by
Rs.1,23,560/-.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is given liberty to recover the
same from respondent No.2 by initiating proper
proceedings.
(v) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
(vi) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
