IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2133 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN CHANDRU @ CHANDRA S/O MADEGOWDA AGED: 31 YEARS R/AT PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKANAGARA MYSORE.
(BY SRI. S N BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND ... APPELLANT 1. PRAVEEN RAVINDRAN S/O RAVINDRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MOOVATHI (H) ANGAMALY: 683 572.
2. PRAVEEN THOMAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS VALIYAMPLACKEL CHATHAMANGALAM KOZIKODE, KERALA STATE-673 601.
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOZIKODE, KERALA STATE-673 601.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R1 & R2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 02-6-2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1165/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 23/12/2011 in M.V.C.No.1165/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III & MACT, Mysore.
2. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 14-5-2009. It is stated that the claimant was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident and was an agriculturist by profession with monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. When he was returning on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-EC-6198 from Hunusal village in Nanjangud Taluk to his Paduvarahalli village with his uncle on the pillion seat at about 1:30 p.m., on 14-5-2009, a Maruthi Swift bearing Reg.No.KL-09-EC-4029 driven by respondent No.1 in a high speed with rash and negligent manner hit to the appellant’s motorcycle. Due to which the petitioner-appellant suffered injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Basappa Memorial Hospital, Mysore, wherein he was inpatient from 14-5-2009 to 18-5-2009.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.3-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the averments of the petition. It is stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is too exorbitant and they deny the accident in the absence of furnishing the particulars of accident by the registered owner of the vehicle and also contended that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of petitioner himself.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2 Doctor and got marked documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16.
Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has not lead any evidence.
5. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material on record both oral and documentary evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.)
The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident is of the year 2009, whereas the Tribunal has taken only Rs.3,000/- per month as income to determine the compensation on the head of ‘Future loss of income’, which is on the lower side. He further submits that at least Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal. It is his further submission that compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head of ‘Attendant Charges’ and ‘Special Diet’ is also on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award.
9. The appellant claims that he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2009 and he was inpatient for five days. The income taken by the Tribunal for determining ‘Future loss of income’ at Rs.3,000/- per month is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok Adalath while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident cases would take notional income for the accidents of the year 2009 at Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, I deem it appropriate to take Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant for determination of the compensation. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of ‘Future loss of income’ as follows: Rs.5000x12x17x5/100=51,000/-.
10. Further, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.500/- on the head of ‘Attendant Charges’ and Rs.500/- on the head of ‘Special Diet’, which is also on the lower side. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and taking into consideration that he was inpatient for five days, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘Attendant Charges’ and Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘Special Diet’. Further, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the head of ‘Loss of Earnings’ as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant-appellant would be entitled for modified compensation as follows:
Amount in (Rs.)
Thus, the appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.33,400/- (2,23,400-1,90,000) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ