Karnataka High Court
Mohan vs Divisional Controller on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
MFA No. 416 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MOHAN,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT HANUMANTHARAYANADINNE VILLAGE,
HUDUKULA POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISHA G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
signed by D.C. KSRTC,
YAMUNA K L KOLAR DEPOT,
Location: KOLAR.
High Court of
...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. Y.G. MITHUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.35/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
PRL. JMFA KGF, C/C ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
MFA No. 416 of 2021
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Harsha G., learned counsel who represents
Sri. Sachin B.S., learned counsel on record for the
appellant. Also heard Sri.Y.G.Mithun Kumar, learned
counsel who represents Sri Balaraj A.C., learned counsel
on record for the respondent.
2. This is a claimant's appeal. The order under
challenge is the one that is rendered by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, KGF, in MVC No.35/2016 dated
27.11.2018. As against the claim for Rs.15,00,000/- in
total, the Tribunal through the impugned order has
awarded a sum of Rs.3,74,876/- as compensation and
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. Arguing the matter, Sri Harsha representing the
appellant submits that appellant as a Mason and Mastry
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by the date of
accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income
of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and awarded a
grossly low sum as compensation under the head of loss of
future income due to permanent physical disability.
Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal did not
award justifiable sum as compensation under any head
and therefore, the appellant is before this Court. Learned
counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
4. The submission that is made by Sri Y.G.Mithun
Kumar for the respondent, on the otherhand, is that
appellant did not produce any proof either with regard to
his occupation or the earnings by the date of accident.
Therefore, the Tribunal took the notional income of the
appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month. Learned counsel also
contends that the amount awarded as compensation under
all heads is highly reasonable and therefore, the appeal is
not maintainable.
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
5. A perusal of record reveals that the Tribunal
subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.P5 to P13
to scrutiny came to a conclusion that appellant is entitled
to a sum of Rs.3,74,876/- as compensation. The sum thus
awarded is under the following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards Pain and suffering 60,000-00
Towards loss of future 1,99,920-00
earning
Towards medical expenses 56,956-00
Towards loss of amenities of 15,000-00
life
Towards loss of earning 21,000-00
during laid up period
Towards conveyance, 7,000-00
attendant charges, food and
nourishment
Towards future medical 15,000-00
expenses
Total 3,74,876-00
6. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant
sustained Type-II open fracture of right Tibia and Fibula
and there was amputation of right little finger. Those
injuries are grievous in nature. P.W.2 has deposed that
appellant suffers with 36% permanent disability in respect
of his right lower limb and 2% in respect of his right little
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
finger and the permanent disability in respect of whole
body is 14%. The Tribunal considering the evidence of
P.W.2 took the permanent disability in respect of whole
body as 14%. This court does not find any grounds to
interfere in that regard.
7. Coming to income and earnings of the appellant
by the date of accident, though the appellant contended
that as Mason and Mastry he was earning Rs.20,000/- per
month, as rightly submitted by Sri Mithun Kumar for the
respondent, no evidence is produced to that effect. The
submission that is made by Sri Harsha for appellant in this
regard is that accident occurred in the year 2015 and for
the relevant period, even the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.9,000/- per month for settling the claims and at least
said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal.
This Court finds justification in the submission made.
Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take notional
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/- per month by the
date of the accident.
8. It is not in dispute that appellant was aged about
28 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 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, 40% of the actual earnings are
required to be added towards future prospects. Also as
per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, appropriate multiplier to
be applied is '17 '. Thus, on applying the said parameters,
the loss of earnings due to permanent physical disability is
calculated as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income 9,000-00
Annual income 1,08,000-00
Add 40% towards future 1,51,200-00
prospects
Apply appropriate multiplier 25,70,400-00
'17'
Loss of future earnings due to 3,59,856-00
permanent physical disability
being 14%
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
9. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.1,99,920/- towards loss of future
earning. However, the amount which the appellant is
entitled to towards loss of future earning is Rs.3,59,856/-.
Thus, enhancement in this regard will be Rs.1,59,936/-
(Rs.3,59,856/- - Rs.1,99,920/-).
10. Having considered the nature of injures sustained
i.e., Type-II open fracture of right Tibia and Fibula and
amputation of right little finger, this Court is of the view
that appellant would not have attended his normal
pursuits at least for a period of four months. Thus, loss of
earning during laid up period comes to Rs.36,000/-
(Rs.9,000/-x4). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.21,000/- towards loss of earning during laid up period.
Thus, enhancement will be Rs.15,000/-
(Rs.36,000/- - Rs.21,000/-).
11. Thus, the amount which the appellant is entitled
to in addition to the amount that is awarded by the
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
Tribunal through the impugned order is Rs.1,74,936/-
(Rs.1,59,936/- + 15,000/-).
12. In the light of the foregoing findings, the appeal
is disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, KGF, through orders in
M.V.C. No.35/2016 dated 27.11.2018 is enhanced by
Rs.1,74,936/-.
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
iv. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:36252
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
YN
