Karnataka High Court
Narayan vs Uddesh And Anr on 31 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
MFA No. 201515 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201515/2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NARAYAN S/O BHOTU CHAWAN,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHONDI THANDA,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UDDESH S/O MALLIKARJUN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE R/O. H.NO.38, CHAWLI ROAD,
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.13
15:19:57 -
0800
JAI BHEEM NAGAR,
BIDAR-585 401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, VEERBHADRESHWAR CHAMBERS,
DOOR NO.8-10-135/1 AND 1A,
OPP. NEHRU STADIUM,
BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV., R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
MFA No. 201515 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2021 PASSED BY THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM AND ADDL. MACT, AT
BIDAR, IN MVC NO.220/2019 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY FIXING THE ENTIRE
LIABILITY ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT - INSURANCE
COMPANY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is by the claimant against the
judgment and award dated 03.03.2021 passed in MVC
No.220/2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and
Additional M.A.C.T, Bidar, (for short 'Tribunal'), seeking
enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as below:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
a) On 12.05.2017 when the petitioner was traveling
in an Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-38/6430, the driver
drove the same in negligent manner and the vehicle turned
turtle, resulting in the accident, wherein, the petitioner
sustained fracture of proximal tibia on right leg with injuries
to right thigh, right shoulder and clavicle right iliac, right
thigh and feet, etc. Immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Bidar, and thereafter he has taken
treatment at private hospital. A case came to be registered
against the driver of Auto Rickshaw and charge-sheet was
laid against him. The petitioner approached the Tribunal
contending that he was an Agriculturist, aged about 52 years
and had suffered permanent disability and therefore
adequate compensation may be awarded to him.
b) On being served with notice, respondent No.1
owner of the offending vehicle denied the claim contending
that the claim is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable
and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2,
therefore, any liability be fastened upon respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
c) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended
that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and that there
was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as the
driver of the Auto Rickshaw was not having valid Driving
License.
d) The petitioner deposed as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P14
were marked. The treated Doctor was examined as PW2 on
his behalf. No evidence was laid on behalf of the
respondents. The Tribunal after hearing both sides came to
the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads as below:
Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/-
Medical Expenses, Attendant, Rs.80,880/-
Conveyance, Nourishing Food, and
Other Incidental Expenses
Loss of Income During Laid-up Period Rs.14,000/-
Loss of Future Income on Account of Rs.90,720/-
Permanent Disability
Loss of Amenities, life Comforts and Rs.10,000/-
Expectancy of Life
TOTAL Rs.2,15,600/-
e) The Tribunal fastened liability on the owner of the
vehicle, since the Driving License was not produced before it.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has
approached this Court in appeal assailing quantum of
compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contends that the Tribunal has failed to assess the notional
income of the petitioner-appellant in a proper manner and
therefore, there should be re-assessment of the
compensation. He also points out that the compensation
awarded under remaining heads is also abysmally low and
they need to be enhanced reasonably. He also pointed out
that the appellant has filed an application under Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of copy of Driving License
of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such, submits
that the fastening of liability on the owner of the Auto
Rickshaw is erroneous and the same needs to be rectified.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct
and there is no need for enhancement of the same. It is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
further pointed out that the Tribunal has considered the
disability of 12% even though the PW2-Doctor had stated
the physical disability at 25% and as such, no interference is
required in the same. Regarding the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the learned counsel fairly submits
that if the Driver of the Auto Rickshaw had a valid Driving
License, then the Insurance Company is ready to accept the
liability.
6. A careful perusal of the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC would show that the petitioner has
produced the web copy of Driving License of the Driver of
offending vehicle and the print out of App of Government of
India is also enclosed. Therefore, the document having been
acceded by respondent No.2, the Application deserves to be
allowed.
7. Coming to the assessment of the compensation,
the petitioner was aged 60 years at the time of accident as
observed by the Tribunal in Wound Certificate. He was an
agricultural coolie and he had suffered fracture of right tibia,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
for which, he had undergone surgery and had implants
inserted. The Doctor-PW2 has stated that there is
shortening of the leg by half inch and therefore, he opined
that there is physical disability of 25% to the left leg.
8. Considering the age of the petitioner and the
disability stated by PW2, the functional disability has to be
re-determined by this Court. The Tribunal has determined
the same at 12% and it appears that the age of the
petitioner was not taken into consideration. Therefore,
considering the age of the petitioner, the functional disability
is considered by this Court at 15%.
9. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the
disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional
income of Rs.10,250/- for the year 2017. In umpteen
number of decisions, this Court has held that the
guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on
the ground that they are in general conformity with the
minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
Therefore, in the absence of any other proof of income,
the notional income of the petitioner is accepted as
Rs.10,250/- per month.
10. Thus, loss of future income is calculated as
Rs.10,250/- x 12 x 15 x 9 = Rs.1,66,050/-, by adopting
multiplier of '9'. Consequently, the compensation under the
heads loss of income during laid up period of calculated at
Rs.10,250/- x 3 = Rs.30,750/-.
11. The compensation under the head of pain and
suffering being on the lower side, the same is enhanced to
Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under the head of loss of
amenities in life is also enhanced to Rs.25,000/- from
Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any specific
compensation under the head attendant's and incidental
charges, but it merges the same with medical expenses.
Therefore, the medical bills being worth more than
Rs.76,000/-, the petitioner is also entitled for additional sum
of Rs.15,000/- under these heads as he was inpatient for a
period of 17 days. Therefore, in addition to the Rs.80,880/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to
the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.3,57,680/- under different heads as
below:
Sl. Heads Award by the Award by this
No. Tribunal Court
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000 /-
2 Medical Expenses, Rs.80,880/- Rs.80,880/-
Attendant, +
Conveyance, Rs.15,000/-
Nourishing Food,
and Other Incidental
Expenses
3 Loss of Income Rs.14,000/- Rs.30,750/-
During Laid-up
Period
4 Loss of Future Rs.90,720/- Rs.1,66,050/-
Income on Account
of Permanent
Disability
5 Loss of Amenities, Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
life Comforts and
Expectancy of Life
Rs.2,15,600/- Rs.3,57,680/-
Less Award by the Tribunal Rs.2,15,600/-
Total enhancement Rs.1,42,080/-
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:703
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award is hereby
modified. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,42,080/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its deposit before the
Tribunal, in addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal.
iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount with
interest before the Tribunal, within a period of six
weeks from today.
iv) The order of the Tribunal regarding fixed deposit,
release etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
