IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. No.7938/2016[MV] BETWEEN ESHWAR S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MANMANE VILLAGE SIDDAPURA TALUK KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355 (BY SRI VIJAYA M N, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND 1. NAGARAJA DATTATREYA DESHBHANDARI S/O DATTATREYA DESHBHANDARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DRIVER R/O RAMANABAILU SIRSI, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581 401 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC, SIRSI DEPOT UTTARA KANNADA DIVISION 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION INSURANCE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE DIVISION BENGALURU-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD.05.12.2017) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.261/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-9, SAGAR, 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:
J U D G M E N T The claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation against the Judgment and Award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. and Member, XIX Additional M.A.C.T., Sagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.261/2014.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was hale and healthy, aged about 26 years, met with an accident on 26.10.2013 and sustained fracture of 1st, 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bone of right foot and 1st metatarsal bone was replaced by removing one bone from his left foot and skin grafting was done and also he had sustained crush injury on right foot 20 x 10 cms. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,27,450/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and sought to enhance the same.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents sought to dismiss the appeal as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. It is seen that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads seems to be little meager. Though, the Doctor had assessed 31% disability to the right leg, the Tribunal has taken only 5% to the whole body, which is on the lower side. Hence, I re-assess 10% disability to the whole body. Further, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side, since the claimant in his claim petition had claimed that he was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum by working as a Mason and also doing agricultural work. In the absence of proof of income, taking into consideration the year of accident and price index, I would re-assess it at Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, future loss of income due to permanent disability works out to Rs.1,63,200/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 10% x 17) and loss of income during laid up period works out to Rs.40,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 5), as against Rs.51,100/- and Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, respectively. Further, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in future. In all, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation at Rs.1,32,100/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 05.08.2016 in M.V.C. No.261/2014 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*