IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.744/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. ARUNAKUMARI W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KORA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA. N, ADV.) AND 1. SRI S.JANARDHAN S/O LATE S.RAJKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 3RD CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, RANGANATHASWAMY, TEMPLE STREET, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560053.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHUBHASRI MAHENDRA TOWERS 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011, REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.112/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The matter lies in a narrow compass. Though the matter is listed for ‘Admission’, the appeal is taken up final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month is on the lower side and that even in the Lok-Adalath, in respect of claim pertaining to the 2013, the notional income adopted is at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer would fairly admit the same.
5. On this ground, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the sum awarded under the head ‘loss of future income’ taking into consideration the permanent disability, is on the lower side. He would further contend that the sum awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities and unhappiness’ is also on the lower side.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurer would submit that even as per the doctor’s evidence, the appellant had been recommended rest for a period of three months but the Tribunal erred in calculating the ‘income during laid up period’ for four months. He would submit that in the light of the medical evidence available on record the functional disability assessed at 20% to the whole body requires re-consideration. There appears to be some merits in his contention.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and with regard to the liability on the insurer. In this background, the short point that arise for consideration by this Court is:
‘Whether the sum awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable compensation?
8. In the light of the fair submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer, the notional income is required to be adopted at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. If that be so, the sum to be awarded under the head ‘loss of income due to permanent disability’ is to be calculated in the manner as under:
Rs.8,000 x 12 x 16 x 15/100 = Rs.2,30,400/-
9. The same works out to Rs.2,30,400/- resulting in enhancement of award by Rs.1,15,200/-. Consequently, the sum awarded under the head ‘loss of income during laid down period’ requires to be enhanced by Rs.12,000/- and the claimant would be entitled to total sum of Rs.24,000/- under the said head.
10. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,27,200/- over and above compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,82,150/-.
The appellant would be entitled to interest calculated at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition on the enhanced sum awarded by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR