IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.1412 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
BHADRAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED 52 YEARS, R/O VADALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADV.) AND:
1. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHIVANANJAPPA AGED 47 YEARS R/O.KEREKODI VARADENAHALLI, AMMANAGHATTA POST KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ., TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO- GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SERVICE OFFICE AT MBAV MANSIONS I FLOOR, III CROSS, M.G. ROAD, ABOVE UCO BANK GENERAL KARIYAPPA ROAD, TUMAKURU, BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.174/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 17th August, 2015, the injured made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gubbi. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 07th September 2017 passed in MVC No.174 of 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.3,01,700/-. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, seeking enhancement.
2. The leaned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation under all the heads. He submits that though the claimant has stated the he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing masonry work, the same is disbelieved and the income is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, he submits that the compensation requires to be suitably enhanced.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and there is no ground for interference in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment. In the cases where the income is not proved by producing documentary evidence, then the courts should assess the income notionally. The notional income is to be assessed by taking note of relevant factors like year of accident, place of residence, number of dependents, cost of living prevalent then, etc. In this case, with relevance to the year of accident, which is 2015, the income is to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly the compensation under the head loss of future income comes to Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.9000 x 12 x 15 x 15%). The same is awarded as against Rs.1,87,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of amenities. Considering the fact that the appellant has to undergo the discomfort for the rest of his life, I am inclined to awarded Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Considering the nature of injury and the pain and agony underwent by the appellant, I am inclined to award another Rs.10,000/- under the head pain and suffering; and Rs.5,000/- under the head conveyance, and attendant charges. Taking the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- the compensation under the head loss of income during the laid-up period comes to Rs.54,000/-, the same is awarded as against Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remain unaltered. In the result, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.99,800/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/- The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn