IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2600 OF 2017 Between:
Smt. Jayamma W/o Kotachari Aged 49 years R/at 64/4, Kaveripura Nanda Gokula School Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru 560 079 (by Shri K.V. Shyamaprasada, Advocate) And:
1. K.H. Gangadhar S/o Hanumanthaiah 55 years R/at Kalya Gate, Ward No.13 Near Water Tank Magadi Taluk Ramanagaram District 562 106 …Appellant 2. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by its Manager No.141, V Floor Srishanthi Towers, 34d Main East of NGEF Layout, Kasturinagar Bengaluru – 560 043 …Respondents (by Shri E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate for R2) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 06.12.2016 passed in MVC No.667/2016 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIOX ACMM, Member MACT, Bangalore (SCCH 23) partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 06th December, 2016 passed by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.667 of 2016 whereby the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,104/- together with interest at 6% per annum in favour of the appellant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 11th December, 2016.
2. Heard. Admit.
3. With the consent of both sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. Both the learned counsel submit that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident as well as coverage of the vehicle in question by respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It is also submitted that the present appeal is restricted to enhancement of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.
5. The Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,48,104/- under the following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.35,000.00 2 Loss of future earnings Rs.78,000.00 3 Medical expenses Rs.15,104.00 4 Conveyance allowance and nutritious food 5 Discomfort, unhappiness and inconvenience Rs.10,000.00 Rs.10,000.00 Total Rs.1,48,104.00 Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Court below committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and suffering without appreciating and having regard to the gravity and severity of the injuries suffered by the appellant. He submits that the appellant would be entitled to a higher compensation under this head. It is also contended that in view of the guidelines of the Lok Adalat with regard to the income, since the accident took place in the year 2016, the notional income of the appellant would have to be taken at Rs.9,500/- per month. It is also contended that the court below committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head loss of income during the laid-up/treatment period. Lastly, it is contended that the Court below committed an error in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- each under the heads conveyance allowance & nutritious food; and discomfort, unhappiness & inconvenience, without taking into account the nature and seriousness of injuries suffered by the appellant.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would support the impugned order.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would indicate that at paragraph No.10 of the impugned award, the Court below has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant, who was working as a coolie, would have to be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. In this context, it is relevant to note that in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016 coupled with the guidelines issued by the Lok Adalat, in the absence of proof of income of the appellant, the notional income would have to be taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 13 having regard to the age of the appellant and fixing the physical permanent functional disability to the extent of 10%, the total compensation under the head loss of future earnings would be Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 13 x 10% = Rs.1,48,200/-.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the material on record also establish that the appellant was undergoing treatment as was laid-up for a period of two months during which she suffered loss of income. Taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.9,500/- per month as stated supra, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,000/- under the head loss of income during the laid-up/treatment period.
10. Insofar as the heads Pain and suffering, discomfort, unhappiness and inconvenience are concerned, the appellant would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- for each of the heads. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a total compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Head Amount in Rs.
4 Conveyance allowance and nutritious food 10,000.00
11. Thus the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,57,304.00 as against Rs.1,48,104/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
O R D E R 1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and award dated 06th December, 2016 passed in MVC No.667/2016 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIOX ACMM, Member MACT, Bangalore is hereby modified.
3. Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn