IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.631/2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
ARIL @ ARIFULLA S/O.C.B.NANDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AROPLANE BUILDING, HIMMATH NAGAR, BEHIND J J HATTI, CHITRADURGA TOWN – 577 501. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B PRAMOD, ADV.) AND:
1. SRINIVASA K.T S/O.THIMMA REDDY, MAJOR, OWNER OF MAHENDRA XYLO CAR BEARING REG. NO. KA 16/B, 9514, R/O. GUDDADARANGAVVANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 502.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DOOR NO.7/432, K.B. EXTENSION, LAWYER ROAD, DAVANGERE – 577 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D S SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.243/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Injured, who was aged about 32 years, suffered road traffic accident on 07th April 2015. He had made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Chitradurga. The Tribunal, by its award dated 29th October 2015 passed in MVC No.243 of 2015 awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,700/-. This appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking higher compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the wound certificate discloses that the claimant suffered swelling of tenderness at right leg above ankle, BB fracture, swelling and tenderness at left leg above ankle, BB fracture; and abrasion of 2 x 2 cm at right elbow. The Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 62% to the whole body. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,26,800/-
under the head loss of future income due to disability by assessing the income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the injured was earning Rs.500/- per day and was working under the contractor. The Contractor has also been examined. Despite the evidence of the Contractor, the Tribunal had assessed the income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned counsel seeks enhancement in the compensation. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities. He further submits that awarding of compensation under the head loss of future income is also on the lower side.
3. Heard. Though the claimant state the he has proved the income by examining PW2 who is the Contractor, but just examining a person claiming himself to be a contractor is not sufficient. The Contractor has to necessarily produce the licence and Income-tax returns to show that he is the Contractor. Since those documents are not forthcoming in the case on hand, just considering the evidence of PW2 is not sufficient. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, though the income has not been proved by producing necessary documents, but by taking the relevance of the year of accident, which is 2015. in this case, the income is to be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, the same is assessed. Hence, the calculation would be Rs.10,000/- x 21% x 12 x 15 which comes to Rs.3,78,000/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.2,26,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards loss of income during the laid up period Rs.30,000/- is awarded. Considering the discomforts the injured has to undergo under the head loss of amenities, Rs.25,000/- is awarded. Considering the pain and agony underwent by the injured, another Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the said head. Towards Medical expenses Rs.38,900/- is awarded. Towards food, nourishment and diet another Rs.15,000/- is awarded. In the result, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.2,46,200/-. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal.
Appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
lnn Sd/- JUDGE