Karnataka High Court
Smt D M Sujatha vs The Manager, Iffco-Tokio General on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
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. 988 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2909 OF 2021(MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2022 (MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 988 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O SHANTHAMURTHY M.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NO 64, AVALAHALLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 064
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGER, NO. 151,
5TH FLOOR, III MAIN, EAST TO
N. G. E. F. LAYOUT, KASTURINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
2. SRI G. CHANNAKESHAVA
MAJOR, NO. 6, WARD NO. 9,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
CHANDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 16.02.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 2642/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 2909 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SMT D. M. SUJATHA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
NO.5, AVALAHALLI SHED FARM,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. V. MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGER
NO.151, 5TH FLOOR
III MAIN, EAST TO N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
KASTURINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
2. SRI. G. CHANNAKESHAVA,
MAJOR,
NO.6, WARD NO.9,
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
CHANDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. B. C.ANUP SEETHARAM RAO.,ADVOCATE
FOR R1 (VC);
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 24.03.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2651/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 603 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. K. SUNITHA,
W/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT AVALAHALLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.151, 5TH FLOOR, III MAIN,
EAST TO N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
KASTURINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 043.
2. SRI G. CHANNAKESHAVA
MAJOR, NO.6, WARD NO.9,
NEAR PETROL BUNK, CHANDAPURA MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL
TALUK, BENGALURU-560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 24.03.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2649/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 656 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.5, AVALAHALLI SHED FARM,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGER,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
NO.151, 5TH FLOOR, III MAIN,
EAST TO N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
KASTURINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 043.
2. SRI. G. CHANNAKESHAVA,
MAJOR, NO.6, WARD NO.9
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
CHANDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 24.03.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2650/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa, learned counsel who
appears for the appellants in all the four appeals. Also heard
Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A., learned counsel who represents
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
Sri.Pradeep B., learned counsel on record for respondent No.1 -
insurance company in MFA Nos.988/2022, 603/2022 and
656/2022. Also heard Sri.Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel
who appeared through video conference for respondent No.1 in
MFA No.2909/2021. All these appeals arise out of the common
order that rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in MVC No.2649/2018, 2650/2018, 2651/2018 and
2642/2018 dated 29.01.2021. All these appeals are filed
seeking enhancement of compensation.
Entitlement of compensation by the appellant in MFA
No.988/2022 who is the claimant in MVC No.2642/2018:
2. The undisputed facts in this case are as under:
i) The appellant sustained grievous injuries that occurred
in a road traffic accident on 14.12.2017.
ii) The appellant was aged about 40 years by the date of
accident.
iii) Though the appellant contended that by running a
provision store and by selling flowers she was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, no proof was produced to that effect.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
iv) That the appellant sustained left open Type III C
fracture of both bones of forearm and left mid shaft humerus
fracture.
v) That the appellant underwent external fixator
application for humerus forearm with debridement.
vi) That the appellant underwent left mid forearm
amputation.
vii) That PW6 Dr. Mahesh assessed the disability in
respect of upper limb as 90% and the whole body as 30%.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel
Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa contends that the appellant lost her left
forearm and is suffering a lot. Though by running a provision
store and by selling flowers, the appellant was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the notional income
as Rs.9,000/- per month which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel
also contends that the appellant was hospitalized for more than
10 days where she underwent surgeries. But the Tribunal
awarded a meager sum under the head loss of earnings during
laid up period which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby
seeks for enhancement of compensation.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
4. Though learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy
submits that the amount awarded as compensation is
justifiable, learned counsel endorsed to the submission made
by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the accident
occurred in the year 2017, as considered by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is required
to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month.
5. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.17,37,000/- as compensation divided under
following heads:
Sl. Heads of compensation Amount
No in Rs.
I PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1 Expenses relating to:
a)to treatment,
6,96,000-00
hospitalization, medicines,
transportation
b)nourishing food and
20,000-00
miscellaneous expenditure
2 Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made
had he not been injured,
comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during
period of treatment 9,000-00
b)Loss of future earnings
on account of permanent 6,32,000-00
disability
3 Future medical expenses 50,000-00
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
II NON-PECUNIARY
DAMAGES (General
Damages)
4 Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a 2,0,000-00
consequence of the injuries
5 Loss of amenities 50,000-00
a) Compensation for
50,000-00
disfigurement
b) compensation for special
diet, attendant and 30,000-00
conveyance charges
Total 17,37,000-00
6. Having taken the notional income as Rs.11,000/-
per month, the appellant being aged about 40 years by the
date of accident, adding 25% towards future prospects as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, applying appropriate multiplier '15' as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
2009 SAR (Civ) 592 and the permanent physical disability in
respect of whole body being 30%, the loss of future earnings
due to permanent physical disability is as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional income per month 11,000-00
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
Annual income (11,000 x
1,32,000-00
12)
Add 25% towards future
1,65,000-00
prospects(1,32,000+25%)
Applying the appropriate
24,75,000-00
multiplier '15'(1,65,000x15)
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical 7,42,500-00
disability being 30%
7. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.6,32,000/- only towards loss of future earnings.
Thus, the enhancement in this regard will be Rs.1,10,500/-
(Rs.7,42,500/- - Rs.6,32,000/-).
8. Admittedly, the appellant underwent left mid
forearm amputation. Having considered the trauma faced
through such amputation and pain and suffering, this Court is
of the view that the appellant would not have been in a position
to attend her normal pursuits at-least for a period of eight
months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.88,000/- (11,000/- x 8). However, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.9,000/- only towards loss of earnings during the
period of treatment. Thus, the enhancement would be
Rs.79,000/- (Rs.88,000/- - Rs.9,000/-).
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
9. Also this Court is of the view that the appellant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in
life. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the
enhancement will be Rs.50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- -
Rs.50,000/-).
10. Thus, the total compensation which the appellant is
entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded by the
Tribunal is Rs.2,39,500/- (Rs.1,10,500/- + Rs.79,000/- +
Rs.50,000/-).
11. Thus, with the foregoing discussion this Court
ultimately holds that the appellant is entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.2,39,500/- as compensation.
Entitlement of compensation by the appellant in MFA
No.2909/2021 who is the claimant in MVC
No.2651/2018:
12. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
i) The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 14.12.2017.
ii) The appellant was aged about 30 years by the date of
accident.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
iii) Though the appellant contended that by doing
vegetables vending business she was earning Rs.18,000/- per
month, no proof was produced before the Tribunal to that
effect.
iv) That the appellant sustained spleenic injury and
fracture of left sacral ala, which are grievous in nature.
v) That spleenectomy was done and fracture of sacrum
was managed conservatively.
vi) That the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a
period of 11 days.
[
13. Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that, the only grievance of the appellant is
that the notional income was taken as Rs.9,000/- per month
and in fact for the relevant period even the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.11,000/- and at-least the said figure should have been
considered by the Tribunal.
14. Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel who
appears through video conference and represents respondent
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
No.1 did not deny the request made by the learned counsel for
the appellant to take the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per
month. Also the request made is justifiable.
15. Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per
month, the appellant being aged about 30 years by the date of
accident, adding 40% towards future prospects as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, applying appropriate multiplier '17', as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
2009 SAR (Civ) 592 and permanent physical disability being
15%, the loss of future earnings due to permanent physical
disability is as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional income per month 11,000-00
Annual income (11,000 x
1,32,000-00
12)
Add 40% towards future
1,84,800-00
prospects(1,32,000+40%)
Applying the appropriate
31,41,600-00
multiplier '17'(1,84,800x17)
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical 4,71,240-00
disability being 15%
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
16. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- only towards loss of future earnings.
Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.1,95,240/- (Rs.4,71,240/- -
Rs.2,76,000/-).
17. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have
attended her normal pursuits at-least for a period of four
months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes
to Rs.44,000/- (11,000/- x 4). However, the Tribunal awarded
a sum of Rs.9,000/- under the said head. The enhancement
thus will be Rs.35,000/- (Rs.44,000/- - Rs.9,000/-).
18. Thus, the total amount which the appellant is
entitled to in addition to the amount that is awarded by the
Tribunal is Rs.2,30,240/- (1,95,240/- + 35,000/-).
Entitlement of compensation by the appellant in MFA
No.603/2022 who is the claimant in MVC No.2649/2018:
19. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
(i) The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 14.12.2017.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
(ii) The appellant sustained thoracic D11 and D12
compression fracture and right lateral malleoli fracture which
are grievous in nature.
(iii) The appellant underwent a surgery for D9 to Lumbar
L2 decompression.
(iv) The right lateral malleoli fracture was treated
conservatively.
(v) The appellant took treatment as inpatient for 9 days.
(vi) The appellant was aged about 48 years by the date of
accident.
(vii) Though the appellant contended that by maintaining
a stationary shop, she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, no
evidence was produced before the Tribunal to that effect.
20. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellant Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa submits that the disability in
respect of whole body as assessed by the Tribunal itself is 18%
and that being the case, award of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of
earnings during laid up period is highly irrational. Learned
counsel also states that the Tribunal took the notional income
as Rs.9,000/- and proceeded with awarding of amount of
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
Rs.2,53,000/- under the head loss of future earnings and as the
accident occurred in the year 2017, the figure adopted for
taking notional income i.e., Rs.11,000/- ought to have been
considered by the Tribunal. Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy representing
respondent No.1 did not raise any objection for taking the
notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month. Also the said
request appears to be justifiable.
21. Taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per
month, the appellant being aged about 48 years by the date of
accident, adding 25% of the actual earnings towards future
prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, applying the
appropriate multiplier '13' and the permanent functional
disability being 18%, loss of future earnings due to permanent
physical disability is as under:
Amount
Description
In Rs.
Notional monthly income 11,000-00
Annual Income (11,000X12) 1,32,000-00
Add 25% towards future
1,65,000-00
prospects (1,32,000+25%)
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
Apply appropriate multiplier '13' 21,45,000-00
Loss of future earnings, permanent
3,86,100-00
physical disability being 18%
22. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a
sum of Rs.2,53,000/- only towards loss of future earnings.
Thus, the enhancement in this regard will be Rs.1,33,100/-
(Rs.3,86,100/- - Rs.2,53,000/-). Having considered the nature
of injuries sustained more particularly to the spine, this
Court is the view that the appellant would not
have attended her normal pursuits atleast for a period
of eight months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid
up period comes to Rs.88,000/- (Rs.11,000/-X8). The Tribunal
through the impugned order awarded a sum of
Rs.9,000/- only under the said head. Thus, the enhancement
will be Rs.79,000/- (Rs.88,000/- - Rs.9,000/-). Also this Court
is of the view that the appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/-
towards food, nourishment and allied expenditure. However,
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- only under the said
head. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the
total amount which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the
sum that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
Rs.2,17,000/- (Rs.1,33,100/- + Rs.79,000/- + Rs.5,000/-).
Therefore, this Court considers that the appellant is entitled to
a sum of Rs.2,17,100/- in addition to the sum that is awarded
by the Tribunal as compensation.
Entitlement of the compensation by the appellant in MFA
No.656/2022 who is the claimant in MVC No.2650/2018:
23. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
(i) The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 14.12.2017.
(ii) The appellant had spleen injury, multiple rib
fractures, compression fracture of D5 and D6 vertebrae,
fracture of right lamina and fracture of left transverse process
of D1 vertebral body.
(iii) The appellant was treated conservatively however
as inpatient for a period of seven days.
(iv) The appellant was aged about 42 years by the date
of accident.
(v) Through the appellant contended that as Tailor she
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of accident, no
proof was produced to that effect before the Tribunal.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
24. Learned counsel for the appellant
Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa contends that the Tribunal took the
notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month which is erroneous.
Learned counsel submits that as tailor, the appellant was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as rightly contended
by Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy, no proof was produced before the
Tribunal regarding the actual occupation and earnings of the
appellant by the date of accident. However, learned counsel
Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy did not deny the submission that is made
by learned counsel for appellant Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa that the
notional income is required to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per
month for the relevant period which the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is doing. Also the request made appears
justifiable. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the
notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month by
the date of accident. There is no denial of the fact that the
appellant was aged about 42 years by the date of accident.
Thus, 25% of the actual earnings are required to be added
towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
VS. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Also the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and
Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '14'. This Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal that the
permanent physical disability is 12% in respect of whole body.
Thus, loss of future earnings due to permanent physical
disability is as under:
Amount
Description
In Rs.
Notional monthly income 11,000-00
Annual Income (11,000X12) 1,32,000-00
Add 25% towards future
1,65,000-00
prospects
Apply appropriate multiplier '14" 23,10,000-00
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical disability 2,77,200-00
being 12%
25. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- only towards loss of
future earnings on account of permanent physical
disability. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.96,200/-
(Rs.2,77,200/- - Rs.1,81,000/-).
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
MFA No. 988 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 2909 of 2021
MFA No. 603 of 2022
MFA No. 656 of 2022
26. Having considered the fact that the appellant
sustained number of grievous injuries for which she took
treatment as inpatient, this Court is of the view that the
appellant would not have attended her normal pursuits
atleast for a period of 5 months. Thus, the loss of earnings
during laid up period comes to Rs.55,000/- (Rs.11,000 X 5).
However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- only
under the said head. Thus, the enhancement will be
Rs.46,000/- (Rs.55,000/- - Rs.9,000/-). Thus, the total sum
which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum
that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is
Rs.1,42,200/- (Rs.96,200/- + Rs.46,000/-). Thus, the appellant
is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,42,200/- in addition to the
sum that is awarded by the Tribunal through the impugned
order.
27. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion, all the
appeals are disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) All the four appeals are allowed in part.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through
orders in MVC No.2642/2018 dated 29.01.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.2,39,500/-.
(iii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through
orders in MVC No.2651/2018 dated 29.01.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.2,30,240/-.
(iv) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through
orders in MVC No.2649/2018, dated 29.01.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.2,17,100/-.
(v) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through
orders in MVC No.2650/2018, dated 29.01.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.1,42,200/-.
(vi) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
(vii) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36758
(viii) On such deposit, the appellants in all the appeals
are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP,DS
CT:TSM
