Karnataka High Court
Dr Shazia Khan @ Dr Shazia Siraj Khan vs Deepak K S on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
MFA No. 1640 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.1640 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DR. SHAZIA KHAN @
DR. SHAZIA SIRAJ KHAN,
W/O. DR. ABID PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2, 6TH MAIN,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE 03
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEEPAK K.S.,
S/O. S.T. KATARKI,
Digitally
signed by 13TH MAIN, I STAGE,
YAMUNA K L GOKULA I PHASE,
Location: MATHIKERE,
High Court of BANGALORE 04
Karnataka
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO. 121, 9TH FLOOR,
THE ESTATE BUILDING,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED: 19.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
MFA No. 1640 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.82/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR 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.Shripad V.Shastri, learned Counsel who
appears through video conference and represents the
appellant. Also heard Sri.B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for
respondent No.2 who appears physically before this Court.
2. The claimant is before this Court seeking
enhancement of compensation. The order under challenge
is the one that is rendered by the Principal Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC No.82/2018 dated
28.11.2019. The only point involved in this appeal as
submitted by Sri.Shripad V.Shastri for appellant is in
respect of the compensation to be awarded under the
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
head loss of future earnngs. Learned Counsel Sri.Shripad
V.Shastri contends that the appellant is a Dentist by
profession. She sustained grievous injuries due to the
accident. She produced the evidence of the doctor who
treated her. The said doctor who gave evidence as P.W.4
spoke in clear terms that the permanent physical disability
in respect of left lower limb is 18% and the right lower
limb is 14% and the whole body disability is 21%.
Learned Counsel states that though such a convincing
evidence is produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did
not award any amount under the head loss of future
earnings due to permanent physical disability which is
unjustifiable. Learned Counsel thereby seeks to evaluate
the evidence and pass necessary orders.
3. Sri B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 on the other hand contends that the appellant was
working as dentist by the date of accident and she
continued the same profession. The appellant who got
examined herself as P.W.1, during the course of
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
cross-examination admitted that she is continuing her
profession even after the accident. Thus, the Tribunal is
justified in dishonouring the request of the appellant to
award any amount under the head loss of future earnings.
Learned Counsel states that as there is no loss of earnings
due to the injuries sustained, award of any amount under
the head loss of future earnings does not at all arise.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
crush injury to her left leg and the said injury was treated
with fixation of plates and debridement. Also it is not in
dispute that P.W.4 basing on the examination conducted,
assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 21%.
Admittedly, a Dentist is not required to conduct her duties
with extensive labour work. However, the undeniable fact
is that Dentist is required to stand and perform the
required procedures to the patients. Also the appellant
being a woman would be facing difficulty in every walk of
life either in attending her duties as a home maker or in
discharging her duties as a Dentist. Loss of future
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
earnings does not only include the monetary loss in
respect of getting the remuneration or salary, but it also
includes the excess amount which the injured would have
to incur for performing her duties in an effective manner,
that may be in respect of transportation, taking the
assistance of any other person while discharging the duties
etc. Having considered all these aspects, this Court is of
the view that basing on the occupation of the appellant as
Dentist, the permanent physical disability is required to be
taken as 5% in respect of whole body. The assessment of
the Tribunal regarding earnings of the appellant as
Rs.35,000/- per month needs no interference.
5. Also it is not in dispute that the appellant was
aged about 33 years by the date of accident. Thus, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied 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 is '16'. Thus, the loss of future earnings due to
permanent physical disability will be as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
Heads Amount in Rs.
Monthly income 35,000-00
Annual income 4,20,000-00
Apply appropriate multiplier 67,20,000-00
'16'
Permanent physical 3,36,000-00
disability being 5%, loss of
future earnings
6. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,36,000/- towards loss of future earnings on account
of permanent physical disability. This court does not find
any other grounds to interfere with the findings given by
the Tribunal.
7. Thus, in the light of the foregoing reasons, the
appeal is disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Principal
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through
orders in M.V.C. No.82/2018 dated 28.11.2019 is
enhanced by Rs.3,36,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:36254
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 second respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
YN
