Karnataka High Court
Mr.Gangadhara H.B vs The Manager on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
MFA No. 6842 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6842 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. GANGADHARA H.B.
S/O. BETTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT HURALIGERE,
YADIYUR HOBLI,
NAGASANDRA, TUMAKURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR,
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
AASEEFA PARVEEN M. G. ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE - 01.
KARNATAKA
2. ZOOM CAR INDIA PVT LTD.,
7TH FLOOR, TOWER 'B',
DIAMOND DISTRICT,
HAL, AIRORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO AND
SRI. B. C. SEETHARAMA RAO FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 03.03.2023)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
MFA No. 6842 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 5364/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU
CITY, (SCCH-1), 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 for the
appellant who appears through video conference. Also heard
Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1
who also appears through video conference.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in MVC No.5364/2018 dated 20.04.2021. The
Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of
Rs.17,18,500/- as compensation and being not satisfied with
the said sum that is awarded as compensation, the claimant is
before this Court.
3. Arguing the matter Sri.Shripad V. Shastri submits
that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
accident and became disabled both physically and
neurologically. Though through the evidence of PW2 the
physical disability was established and though through the
evidence of PW3 the neurological disability was established, the
Tribunal did not award justified sum as compensation and
therefore this appeal is filed. Bringing to the notice of this Court
the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, learned counsel seeks for
enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant by
working in a private firm was earning Rs.15,000/- per month,
however, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant
as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is unjustifiable. Learned
counsel also contends that the accident occurred in the year
2018 and for the relevant period even the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.12,500/- per month and at-least the said figure should have
been considered by the Tribunal.
5. Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 did not deny the submission that is made by
Sri.Shripad V. Shastri regarding the notional income to be
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
taken at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month. However, learned
counsel contends that the amount awarded as compensation
under all other heads is justifiable.
6. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.17,18,500/- as compensation divided under
following heads:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount
No. in Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
2 Medical expenses 10,70,404-00
3 Food and nourishment,
conveyance, attendant
50,000-00
charges and other
incidental expenses
4 Loss of income during laid
1,40,000-00
up period
5 Loss of future earning due
2,88,000-00
to permanent disability
6 Loss of amenities 40,000-00
7 Future medical expenses 70,000-00
Total 17,18,404-00
and the same is rounded off to 17,18,500-00
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of both bones of left leg i.e. tibia and fibula, fractures
of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal of left foot and also a head
injury. Equally it is not in dispute that interlocking nailing of left
tibia was done, plating of left lateral malleolus was done and
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
multiple K wiring of left foot was also done. The evidence of
PW3 is that the appellant was admitted at Hosmat Hospital on
23.06.2018 and he was managed conservatively for the head
injury, he was on ventilator for some time, tracheostomy was
done to help in breathing, there was intensive monitoring and
he was discharged on 30.07.2018. He also deposed that the
appellant again got admitted at the same hospital on
18.03.2019 and bone grafting, fibulectomy and dynamisation
was done and he was discharged on 21.03.2019. He was again
admitted at the same hospital on 18.05.2019 and conservative
treatment for infection was done and was discharged on
20.05.2019. He also deposed that the appellant took further
treatment at Sanjay Gandhi hospital where ring fixation was
done. The evidence thus produced reveals that he sustained
grievous injuries due to the accident and took extensive
treatment.
8. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW2 with
regard to functional disability and the evidence of PW3 with
regard to neurological disability and further making an
observation that the appellant appeared before the Court, gave
evidence as PW1 and stood to the test of cross-examination,
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
the Tribunal assessed and took the disability in respect of whole
body as 15%. The said observation needs no interference.
9. Admittedly, the appellant has not produced any
substantive proof with regard to his actual occupation and
earnings by the date of accident. However, both the learned
counsel sought for taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/-
per month, which is justifiable. Thus, taking the notional
income as Rs.12,500/- per month, the appellant being aged
about 31 years by the date of accident, adding 40% towards
future prospects and applying appropriate multiplier '16', loss
of future earnings due to permanent physical disability is as
under:
Description Amount
in Rs.
Notional income per month 12,500-00
Annual income (12,500 x
1,50,000-00
12)
Add 40% towards future
2,10,000-00
prospects(1,50,000+40%)
Applying the appropriate
multiplier '16'(2,10,000 33,60,000-00
x16)
Permanent physical
5,04.000-00
disability being 15%
Loss of future earnings due
5,04,000-00
to permanent physical
disability
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- only towards loss of future earnings.
Thus, the enhancement on that count would be Rs.2,16,000/-
(Rs.5,04,000/- - Rs.2,88,000/-).
11. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained
and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the
appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation
towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.60,000/- only under the head pain and suffering. Thus, the
enhancement would be Rs.40,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- -
Rs.60,000/-).
12. Taking the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per
month, observing the fact that the appellant would not have
attended is normal work at-least for a period of one year two
months i.e. fourteen months, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings during
laid up period. However, taking the notional income as
Rs.12,500/- per month, the loss of earnings during laid up
period comes to Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 14). As earlier
stated, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.140,000/- only under
NC: 2024:KHC:36594
the head loss of earnings during laid up period. Thus, the
enhancement would be Rs.35,000/- (Rs.1,75,000/- -
Rs.1,40,000/-). Thus, the total compensation which the
appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the compensation
that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,91,000/- (Rs.2,16,000/-
+ Rs.40,000/- + 35,000/-).
13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, 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, Bengaluru, through orders in
MVC No.5364/2018 dated 20.04.2021 is enhanced by
Rs.2,91,000/-.
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 first 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:36594
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
