Karnataka High Court
Vinodkumar T G @ Vinod Naik vs P Suresh Kumar on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
MFA No. 5299 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. 5299 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VINODKUMAR T.G @ VINOD NAIK,
S/O GOVINDANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O THANGLI THANDYA,
KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P. SURESH KUMAR,
S/O K.V. PERRYASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/O NO.2-408, MARTYAMMAN KOVIL ROAD,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
NAGIYAMAPATTI, KENGAVALLI TALUK,
COURT OF SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE - 636 001,
KARNATAKA
DRIVER OF GAS TANKER LORRY.
2. C. SUBRAMANIYAN,
S/O CEERANGA GOWNDAR, MAJOR,
NO.1/58, SILUVAMPATTI AND POST,
NAMAKKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE - 637 001,
OWNER OF GAS TANKER LORRY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
MFA No. 5299 of 2021
3. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRI. LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
BHARATHI STREET, OMALUR MAIN ROAD,
SWARNAPURI, TAMILNADU STATE - 636 004,
INSURER OF GAS TANKER LORRY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 17.02.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.440/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, 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.Prakasha H.C, learned counsel for the
appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also
heard Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar learned counsel for respondent
No.3 who appears through video conference.
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
2. The claimant filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation and challenging the
findings given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kadur in M.V.C. No.440/2015 dated 03.03.2020.
3. Arguing the matter, Sri.Prakasha H.C, learned
counsel submits that the appellant sustained grievous
injuries due to the accident and became permanently
disabled. He, by working as Driver was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of accident. However,
the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- and
awarded very meager sum as compensation and therefore
the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel also submits that the amount
awarded as compensation under the head loss of earnings
during laid up period i.e., Rs.2,000/- is grossly low.
Learned counsel further submits that the tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life
which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks to
enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
5. The submission that is made by
Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on
the otherhand is that the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.3,10,000/- towards cost of damage to the vehicle,
which is inappropriate. Learned counsel though contends
that the amount of compensation under all heads is
justifiable, yet fairly submitted that the loss of income
during laid up period requires slight enhancement.
6. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.6,14,360/- as compensation, divided under
following heads.
Heads Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses 1,14,440-00
Future loss of income 97,920-00
Loss of income during laid 2,000-00
up period
Conveyance charges 20,000-00
Pain and suffering 50,000-00
Food, nourishment and 20,000-00
attendant charges
Cost of damage to vehicle 3,10,000-00
Total 6,14,360-00
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
multiple puncture wounds over lower left arm,
comminuted fracture of left humerus and fracture of left
femur which are grievous in nature. By all the evidence
produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he
took treatment at Kadur Government Hospital, thereafter
at NIMHANS, Bengaluru and later at St.Martha's hospital,
Bengaluru.
8. Subjecting the evidence of CW-1 to scrutiny, the
tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body which
is functional in nature as 8% which needs no interference.
It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 28
years by the date of accident. Though learned counsel
Sri.Prakasha H.C contends that the appellant by working
as Driver was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, as rightly
observed by the tribunal no proof was produced to that
effect. However, having considered the submission made
by both the learned counsel that the figure adopted by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the relevant
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
period i.e., for the year 2014 which is Rs.8,500/- is
required to be adopted. Taking the notional income as
Rs.8,500/- per month, the permanent functional disability
as 8% and applying the appropriate multiplier '17', the
loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability
is as under.
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income 8,500-00
Annual income 1,02,000-00
Apply appropriate multiplier 17,34,000-00
'17'
Loss of future earnings, 1,38,720-00
permanent physical
disability being 8%
9. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.97,920/-
towards loss of future earnings. Thus, the enhancement
will be Rs.40,800/- (1,38,720/- -97,920/-)
10. Having considered the nature of injuries
sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant
would have not attended his normal pursuits atleast for a
period of three months. Thus, the loss of earnings during
laid up period comes to Rs.25,500/-. The tribunal awarded
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
a sum of Rs.2000/- towards loss of earnings during laid up
period. Thus the enhancement will be Rs.23,500/-
(25,500-2000).
11. The tribunal failed to award any amount towards
loss of amenities in life. Considering the grievous injuries
sustained, this Court is of the view that a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is required to be granted towards loss of
amenities in life.
12. Thus, the total amount which the appellant is
entitled to receive in addition to the amount that is
awarded as compensation by the tribunal through the
impugned order is Rs.74,300/-.(Rs.40,800+23,500+
10,000).
13. Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussion,
the appeal is disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:36578
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadur through
orders in M.V.C. No.440/2015 is enhanced by
Rs.74,300/-
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 3rd 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
VS
CT: BHK
