IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.1855 OF 2018 C/W M.F.A.NO. 1917 OF 2018(MV-I) IN M.F.A.NO.1855/2018 BETWEEN THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTER OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSURU – 01 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NO.25/1, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. K.V.MARUTHI S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KENCHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK NOW R/AT C.M.EXTENSION KYATHASANDRA, TUMAKURU.
…APPELLANT 2. SRI.A.R.MAHABOOBA BASHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 69/1, 6TH MAIN ROAD N.G.PALYA, BENGALURU – 560 078.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHISHA.T, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 D/W ) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 380/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING GLOBAL COMPENSATION OF RS.3,94,510/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% ON RS.3,42,510/- P.A. FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.1917/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. K.V.MARUTHI S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT KENCHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK NOW R/AT C.M.EXTENSION KYATHASANDRA, TUMAKURU – 577 501.
(BY SRI.SATHISHA.T, ADVOCATE) AND:
…APPELLANT 1. A.R.MAHABOOBA BASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 69/1, 6TH MAIN ROAD N.G.PALYA, BENGALURU – 560 078.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTER OPP: KSRTC, BUS-STAND, MYSURU – 01.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 D/W, V/O/DT: 09.07.2018) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 380/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these two appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and award dated 07.12.2017 passed by the learned 6th Addl. District and Sessions Judge & MACT, Tumakuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.C.No.380/2016, wherein a sum of Rs.3,94,510/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. was awarded in favour of the claimants.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, M.F.A.No.1855/2018 1917/2018 has been preferred by the respondent-Insurance company for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while M.F.A.No.1917/2018 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.
4. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities’, ‘loss of income during laid up period’ and ‘conveyance, food and nourishment’. He therefore prays for enhancement of compensation under the aforesaid heads.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding excess compensation under the conventional heads and the same needs to be modified by considering the material available on record.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2015, the notional income should be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 10/100) towards ‘loss of future income’. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-, the appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.32,400/- under this head.
9. Having taken the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,000/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Since the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, the appellant-
claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.8,000/- under this head. The appellant is also entitled to additional sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘food, conveyance, nourishment etc.,’ So also, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’ in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as hereunder:-
1 Future loss of income Rs.32,400/-
2 Loss of amenities Rs.35,000/-
3 Loss of income during laid up period 4 Conveyance, food, nourishment etc., Rs.8,000/- Rs,10,000/-
Total Rs.85,400/-
11. Thus, in all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.85,400/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. instead of 7.5% p.a.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) Both the appeals in M.F.A.No.1855/2018 and M.F.A.No.1917/2018 are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.380/2016 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.85,400/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,94,510, which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. instead of Rs.7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith along with the lower court records.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.