IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.6275 OF 2018(MV) BETWEEN KEERTHI. H. N. S/O. NINGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. HENTAGERE KOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 201.
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE MANAGER ...APPELLANT UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., FLAT NO. EE 94, TT INDUSTRIAL AREA, MID MAHAPH, NEW MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-400 001.
2 . CHANNRAYIGOWDA S/O. CHANNEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O. DODDAMAGGE VILLAGE, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2-D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC.NO.524/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, ARAKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arkalgud in MVC.No.524/2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,47,800/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization towards the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.12.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. 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 is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant-claimant as Rs.5,000/-
p.m. as against Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is therefore contended that by taking the notional income as Rs.9,500/-p.m., the appellant- claimant would be entitled to additional compensation in view of the undisputed fact that the appellant- claimant has incurred permanent disability to the extent of 11% to the entire body. It is also contended that consequent upon the notional income being taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m., the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a proportionate enhancement under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period. Lastly, it was contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘pain and agony’ and ‘Food Conveyance and attendant charges’ is inadequate and the same requires enhancement by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant- claimant as Rs.5,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred during the year 2016. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,13,180/- under the head ‘loss of future income’ as hereunder:
9500x12x17x11/100 = Rs.2,13,180/-
The Tribunal having already awarded a sum of Rs.1,12,200/- under this head, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,980/- (Rs.2,13,180 /- - Rs.1,12,200/-) by way of additional compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’.
7. Consequent to coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m., the appellant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.28,500/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period as held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.23,500/- under this head.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant is right in contending that the compensation awarded under the heads ‘pain and agony’ and ‘Food Conveyance and attendant charges’ is inadequate and I deem it fit and proper that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation in sums of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively under the said heads.
9. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization as here under:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,00,980/-
2. Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 23,500/-
3. Pain and agony Rs. 15,000/-
4. Food Conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,49,480/- Rounded off to Rs. 1,50,000/-
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 15.04.2016 passed by the 09.03.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arkalgud in MVC.No.524/2017 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iv) The additional enhancement compensation amount is directed to be released in favour of the appellant-claimant.
SSD Sd/- JUDGE