IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.9133/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
CHINNASWAMY S/O CHANNAPPAGOUNDER AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT BANDALI VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR-01.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADV.) AND:
1. R. PARI S/O S.M. RAMASWAMY, MESSER’S SACHIN MOTOR ROAD WAYS WARD NO.6, CHANDAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR PETROL BUNK ANEKAL, BANGALORE-12.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-23.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH R, ADV. FOR R1 SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.356/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KOLLEGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.06.2015 passed in MVC No.356/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the alleged Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 11.09.2013 when the claimant was proceeding along with pillion rider in Scooter bearing No.KA-05 HK 6876 on Martalli Bandalli Main Road, a Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-4215 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant's Scooter. As a result the claimant(rider) and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Both the rider and the pillion rider filed claim petition in MVC Nos.356/2013 and 357/2013. The claim petition filed in MVC No.356/2013 filed by the pillion rider was the subject matter of MFA No.9134/2015 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 21.10.2019 held that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner. Following the judgment dated 21.10.2019 passed in MFA No.9134/2015, in the present appeal also the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent - owner.
3. The Tribunal based on the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.5,91,389/- with 6% p.a. interest on the following heads:-
While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and whole body disability at 10%.
4. With regard to quantum of compensation the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the assessment of income by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by working as an agriculturist. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1 assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month which is on the lower side. It is stated that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by working as an agriculturist, but he has not placed any material on record to establish his income. In the absence of any material to establish the exact monthly income of the claimant the Tribunal assessed the income notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month, but the same is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok Adalath while settling the accident claims of the year 2013 would normally assess the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, wherever there is no material to establish the exact income of the claimant. In the instant case, also in the absence of material to establish the exact income of the claimant, it would be appropriate to assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus taking the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation on the head 'loss of future income due to disability'. Further the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards the head 'loss of income during laid up period’ instead of Rs.18,000/- in view of review of monthly income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal taking note of the nature of injury, evidence of PW-3 doctor and medical records, assessed the whole body disability at 10%, which is proper and correct, needs no interference. Moreover, the appellant has also not disputed the assessment of the Tribunal in respect of whole body disability. Thus the claimant would be entitled for 'loss of future income due to disability' at Rs.8,000 x 12 x 17 x 10/100 = Rs.1,63,200/-. Further the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/-
towards 'loss of income during laid up period’ at Rs.8,000 x 3 = Rs.24,000/-. Thus the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation as follows :-
a. Loss of future income due to disability (Rs.8000 x 12 x 17 x 10/100) 1,63,200/-
b. Loss of income due to disability 24,000/-
Total Rs.1,87,200/-
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent. Apart from awarding modified compensation on the above two heads at Rs.1,87,200/- in addition to Rs.5,91,389/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads remains intact.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms