IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO. 2859 OF 2018(MV) BETWEEN LOKESH.R S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KAREKAL PALYA HALEGODANAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. RAGHU.R, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND 1. M.SRUJANA S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY.M MAJOR, R/AT NO.5/99D, PULIVENDALA ROAD, MUDDANUR MANDALA, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE – 516 001.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 NOTICE D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3004/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2017 passed by the MACT and Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru in MVC No.3004/2016 whereby the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,65,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., in favour of the appellant towards injuries sustained by him in the road accident that occurred on 30th April 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 are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m., since the accident occurred in the year 2016 as per the Lok Adalath guidelines. It is also contended that the permanent disability assessed at 10% to the entire body of the appellant is extremely low having regard to the material on record. It is therefore contended that the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation by taking the notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m., and higher extent of disability. Consequent to taking the notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m., the appellant would also be entitled to additional compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. It is also contended that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities is highly inadequate and that the same requires enhancement.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the appellant, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m., as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident took place in the year 2016.
8. Further the unimpeached evidence of the doctor coupled with the medical records and other documents, the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the permanent disability as 10% which is on the lower side. The material on record also indicates that having regard to the nature of injuries and the unimpleached evidence of the doctor, medical records and other documents would go to show that the appellant incurred disability to an extent of 13% to the entire body. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,37,120/- (9,500/- x 12 x 16 x 13/100) towards loss of future income. The Tribunal having awarded Rs.1,53,600/-, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.83,520/- towards loss of future income.
9. Consequent upon taking the notional income as Rs.9,500/- p.m., compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period of three months would come to Rs.28,500/-. The Tribunal having awarded Rs.16,000/- under this head, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.12,500/- under this head.
10. The material on record also indicates that having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he would be entitled to additional sums of Rs.10,000/- each under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional enhanced compensation as hereunder:
1 Loss of future income Rs.83,520/-
2 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.12,500/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
4 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,16,020/-
12. Accordingly, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2017 passed by the MACT and Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru in MVC No.3004/2016 is modified by awarding additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,020/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The apportionment and disbursement of the amount is to be done as indicated in the impugned judgment and award.
bnv Sd/- JUDGE