IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.6859 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN MR. KHALID P M., S/O MR.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT PUDIREL HOUSE, KUNJILA VILLAGE, KAKABE POST, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 120.
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. MR. ALROY CONCESSCO, S/O MR. OSCAR CONCESSCO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT ADITHYA A-101, OPPOSITE NEW VERSAVA, TEL. EXCHANGE, MHADA, ANDHREI (W), MUMBAI – 400 053.
2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001.
3. MR. OSCAR COLLIN CONCESSCO, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, R/AT FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR, BELVUE APARTMENT, ABOVE STATE BANK OF MYSORE, VALENCIA, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 002.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.04.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.690/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT – 4, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING 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 03.04.2017 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IV, D.K. Mangaluru, in MVC.No.690/2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.6,55,000/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 6% 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 21.02.2015.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant-claimant as Rs.7,000/-
p.m. instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred in the year 2015. Consequent to taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- p.m., the appellant-claimant would be entitled to proportionate enhancement in the compensation awarded towards ‘loss of income during laid up period. It is also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘attendant charges, food’ etc. having regard to the serious injuries nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident. It was therefore contended that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the hands of this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant- claimant as Rs.7,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred during the year 2015. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,24,640/- under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ as hereunder:
9000x12x16x13/100 = Rs.2,24,640/-
The Tribunal having already awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- under this head. The appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.49,600/- by way of additional compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning capacity’.
7. Consequent to coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant has to be taken as Rs.9,000/- p.m., the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period of 5 months as held by the Tribunal. So also, the Tribunal not having awarded any compensation towards ‘loss of amenities’, I am of the opinion that having regard to the grievous and serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in accident, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’.
8. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,640/- together with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization as here under:
Total Rs. 1,09,640/-
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2017 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, D.K. Mangaluru, in MVC.No.690/2015 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced additional compensation of Rs.1,09,640/- together with 6% interest 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.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD