Karnataka High Court
Sri M Siddaraju vs Tyagaraju H on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
MFA No.914 of 2022
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.914 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE MUNGANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MADHURANAHOSAHALI
DODDABELAVANGALA
RMESHWAR POST
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN, ADV.,)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. TYAGARAJU .H
S/O KEMPARANGAIAH
MAJOR, NO.3
MRSIDDAYYANA PALYA
T.B. CROSS, KODAGI
THIRUMALAPURA
HESARAGHATTA LAKE
BENGALURU 560089
OWNER OF MAHINDR JEEP
BEARING REG NO KA-12/5642.
2. SRI. RANGANATH
MAJOR
NO.751, HESARGHATTA
BENGALURU RURAL 560089.
3. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
MFA No.914 of 2022
KRISHI BHVAN
NEAR HUDSON CIRLCE
BENGALURU 560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRISHAILA S, ADV., FOR R3
V/O DTD:07.08.2024 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1872/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES, JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), 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.K.V.Naik learned counsel for the appellant
who appears physically before this Court. Also heard
Sri.Srishaila.S, learned counsel who represents respondent
No.3 and appears through video conference.
2. This appeal is directed against the order that is
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru
in MVC No.1872/2020 dated 06.08.2021. This is a
claimant's appeal. The Tribunal through the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
order awarded a sum of Rs.6,09,200/- as compensation
divided under following heads:
Sl. Description Amount
No
1 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000
2 Medical expenses Rs.3,87,298
3 Loss of income during laid
Rs.14,000
up period
4 Loss of future income Rs.1,52,880
5 Loss of future amenities
Rs.20,000
and happiness
6 Attendant, conveyance,
food and nourishment Rs.15,000
charges
Total Rs.6,09,178
Rounded to Rs.6,09,200
3. Arguing the matter, Sri.K.V.Naik, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
besides sustaining head injury, also sustained grievous
injury to his right leg. The appellant took treatment as
inpatient for more than a week and underwent surgery.
Pw.2 clearly deposed that the disability in respect of right
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
lower limb is 45% and in respect of whole body is 15%.
However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of
whole body as 7% which is improper. Learned counsel also
states that the appellant as an agriculturist was earning
Rs.50,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal took the notional
income as Rs.14,000/- p.m. which is unjustifiable. Learned
counsel thereby seeks to enhance the compensation.
4. On the other hand the submission that is made
by Sri.Srishaila.S, learned counsel for respondent No.3 is
that the appellant has not produced any evidence with
regard to his occupation and earnings by the date of
accident. Learned counsel also states that Pw.2 did not
speak about the functional disability. Having considered
the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal rightly took
the functional disability in respect of whole body as 7%.
Learned counsel further submits that the amount awarded
as compensation under all heads is justifiable and in case
this Court intends to enhance any sum it may be for the
pain and suffering.
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
5. On going through the relevant material that is
brought on record, this Court is of the view that the
assessment of functional disability as 7% in respect of
whole body by the Tribunal is justifiable. Pw.2 is not the
person who treated the appellant. Also Pw.2 stated that
the fractures are united.
6. Coming to the aspect of earnings of the
appellant by the date of accident, the appellant produced
Ex.P16-RTC extracts as well as Ex.P11-bank account
statement to establish his occupation. However, as rightly
observed by the Tribunal, the said documents does not
establish the income of the appellant in clear terms. There
is no convincing material on record to show that the
appellant was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. through
agriculture. However, considering the fact that the
appellant was an agriculturist by the date of accident and
also in light of the documents produced in that regard, this
Court considers desirable to take the notional income of
the appellant as Rs.16,000/- p.m.
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged
about 49 years by the date of accident. Thus appropriate
multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '13'.
8. Thus the compensation which the appellant is
entitled to towards loss of earnings due to permanent
functional disability is as under:
Notional monthly income Rs.16,000/-
Annual income Rs.1,92,000/-
On applying appropriate Rs.24,96,000/-
multiplier 13
Permanent functional disability Rs.1,74,720/-
being 7%, loss of future
earnings is
9. It is clearly brought on record that apart from
sustaining head injury the appellant sustained compound
fracture of lower one third tibia and fibula and he
underwent wound debridement, open reduction and
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
internal fixation with LCP and screws. Having considered
the nature of injuries thus sustained, this Court is of the
view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-
under the head pain and suffering. Also the appellant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant,
conveyance, food and nourishment charges. The appellant,
in light of the injuries sustained would have taken bed rest
at least for a period of three months. Thus the loss of
earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.48,000/-
(Rs.16,000X3).
10. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is
entitled to under different heads will be as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No
1 Compensation for pain and
Rs.50,000
suffering
2 Medical expenses Rs.3,87,298
3 Loss of income during laid
Rs.48,000
up period
4 Loss of future income Rs.1,74,720
5 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
6 Towards attendant,
conveyance, food and Rs.20,000
nourishment charges
Total Rs.7,00,018
11. Thus in the light of the forgoing 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,
Bengaluru through orders in MVC
No.1872/2020 dated 06.08.2021 is
enhanced from Rs.6,09,200/- to
Rs.7,00,018/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount within a period of
8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:36185
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:MS
