IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.464/2017 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.466/2017(MV) IN MFA 464/2017 BETWEEN:
ARUN @ ARUN KUMAR S/O SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O KEMENAHALLIVL JAVAGAL HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. .. APPELLANT (By SRI JAGADEESH H.T. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ILLIYAZ PASHA S/o LATE IMTHIYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O KOTE BANVARA ARSIKERE TALUK 573 103 2. K.G. NATARAJU S/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SECRETARY VIDYANIKETHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL KENKEREHALLI VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK 573 103 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HASSAN BRANCH HASSAN 573 201 .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 – D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1719/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 466/2017 BETWEEN:
LOHIT @ LOHIT KUMAR S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O BISALEHALLI VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK 573103 HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. .. APPELLANT (By SRI JAGADEESH H.T. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ILLIYAZ PASHA S/o LATE IMTHIYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O KOTE BANVARA ARSIKERE TALUK 573 103 2. K.G. NATARAJU S/O LATE GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SECRETARY VIDYANIKETHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL KENKEREHALLI VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK 573 103 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HASSAN BRANCH HASSAN 573 201 .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 – D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1717/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals filed by the claimants are directed against the common judgment and award dated 04.07.2016 passed in MVC Nos.1719/2014 and 1717/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, whereby the claim petitions came to be allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,32,800/- in MVC No.1719/2014 and Rs.4,01,390/- in MVC No.1717/2014 after deducting 25% on contributory negligence in both MVCs, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petitions till realisation.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the leaned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that the occurrence of accident as well as coverage of policy of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is not in dispute and that the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellants is to be taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m in both the MVCs. In this context, learned counsel invited my attention to the guidelines of the Lok Adalath, which stipulate that in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2017, notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly, appellants would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation in this regard.
5. It was also contended that upon taking notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m., the appellants would be entitled to proportionate additional compensation for ‘loss of income during the treatment/laid up period’. It was further contended that having regard to the serious and grievous nature of injuries sustained by the appellants on account of accident, the compensation awarded under the head `pain and suffering, loss of comfort for his future life is highly insufficient and meager and the same requires enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award.
7. I have given my careful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award in MVC No.1719/2014 would clearly indicate that the Tribunal committed an error in not taking the notional income of the appellants as Rs.6,000/- p.m. as against Rs.9,500/- p.m. under the head loss of income due to disability and the same requires to be enhanced as hereunder:
Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 18 x 10/100 = Rs.2,05,200/-
9. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,600/- under the head `loss of income due to disability’, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.75,600/- (Rs.2,05,200-1,29,600) under this head.
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded under the head `loss of income during the treatment period’ has to be increased proportionately by taking notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled the total sum of Rs.19,000/- under this head.
The Tribunal having already awarded Rs.12,000/-, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7,000/- under the head `loss of income during the treatment/laid up period’.
11. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, having regard to the grievous and serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he would be entitled to additional sums of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- under the heads, `pain and suffering, loss of amenities and comfort for his future life respectively.
treatment period 6 Loss of amenities and comfort for future life 7 Conveyance Nourishment food and attendant charges Rs. 15,000/-
Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 3,30,358/-
The Tribunal having awarded Rs.2,32,800/-, the Appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.97,558/-(3,30,358-2,32,800) In MVC No.1717/2014 12. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award in MVC No.1717/2014 would clearly indicate that the Tribunal committed an error in not taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- p.m. as against Rs.9,500/- p.m. under the head loss of income due to disability as hereunder:
Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 17 x 24/100 = Rs.4,65,120/-
13. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.
2,93,760/-under the head `loss of income due to disability’, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs. 1,71,360/- ( 2,93,760-4,65,120) under this head.
14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded under the head `loss of income during the treatment period’ has to be increased proportionately by taking notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled the total sum of Rs.19,000/- under this head. The Tribunal having already awarded Rs.12,000/-, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7,000/- under the head `loss of income during the treatment/laid up period’.
15. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, having regard to the grievous and serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- under the heads, `pain and suffering, loss of amenities and comfort for his future life respectively.
treatment period 6 Loss of amenities and comfort for future life 7 Conveyance Nourishment food and attendant charges Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 6,19,750/-
16. The Tribunal having awarded Rs.4,01,390/-, the Appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,18,360/-(4,01,390-6,19,750) In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER i) Appeals is hereby partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 4.07.2016 passed in MVC No.1719/2014 and MVC No.1717/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere is hereby modified awarding additional enhanced compensation in favour of the appellants;
iii) Appellants in MVC No.1719/2014 are entitled to a sum of Rs.97,558/- with interest 6% p.a;
iv) Appellants in MVC No.1717/2014 are entitled to Rs.2,18,360/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
v) The enhanced amount shall be released in favour of the appellants.
Sd/- JUDGE HR