IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.2696 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN Kumara M.G S/o Gopalachari Aged 32 years R/o Mahadevapura Village Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District – 571 438. … Appellant (By Sri. Sreenivasan M.Y, Advocate) AND 1. Javaregowda, Major S/o Nanjundegowda R/at Jakkanahalli Village Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District – 571 438.
2. The Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam M.S General Ins. Co. Ltd Level-6, 9th Floor, Golden Heights Complex, 4th M-Block, Rajajinagara Bengaluru – 570 010. … Respondents (By Sri. B.Pradeep, Advocate for R2, Notice to R1 d/w) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated: 25.01.2018 passed in MVC No.879/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.879/2016, awarding a sum of Rs.6,26,290/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization towards the injuries sustained by the appellant- claimant in a road accident that occurred on 13.06.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident and the liability as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,26,290/- in favour of the appellant which is as hereunder:
(in Rs.) Particulars Amount
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant should be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant invites my attention to lok-adalath guidelines, wherein, absence of proof of income, the notional income in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016 should be taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. It is therefore contended that the Tribunal having taken the permanent disability to the entire body of the appellant as 26%, the appellant would be entitled to enhance the compensation by taking his notional income as Rs.9,500/- as against Rs.7,000/- has wrongly held by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the appellant, a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head ‘Pain, shock and agony’ was highly inadequate and meager and the same requires to be enhanced. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of the fact that the notional income of the appellant had to be taken as Rs.9,500/- per month instead of Rs.7,000/-, that proportionately the loss of income during laid-up/treatment period would have to be enhanced in favour of the appellant. Lastly, it is contended that a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded in favour of the appellant under the head ‘Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities’ is highly insufficient and that the same requires enhancement by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award indicates that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month. In this context, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the lok-adalath guidelines. In view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016, the notional income should ought to be taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. Under these circumstances, the notional income is Rs.9,500/- per month. The appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,32,600/- under the head ‘loss of future income’.
10. Consequent to my finding that the notional income of the appellant has to be taken as Rs.9,500/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to proportionate the enhancement of compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during laid-up/treatment period’. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7,500/- under this head.
11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’ without appreciating. Having regard to gravity and serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, in particular two fractures suffered by him and other injuries on account of the accident a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded under this head was meager and inadequate. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head also. For the said reason, the appellant also would be entitled an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘Pain, shock and agony’.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the appellant would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.1,70,100/- is stated hereunder.
(in Rs.) Particulars Amount Pain, shock and agony 20,000/- Loss of income during treatment period 7,500/-
Loss of income towards permanent disability Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities 1,32,600/-
10,000/-
Total 1,70,100/-
Thus, the appellant would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,100/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following;
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge MACT, Srirangapatna in M.V.C.No.879/2016 is hereby modified and the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,100/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount is hereby directed to be released in favour of the appellant.
Ordered accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb