IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A NO.10142 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
M NAGESHA S/O LATE MADAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O RACHAPPAJI LAYOUT, T. NARASIPURA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT, NOW R/AT C/O KUMAR, 2ND CROSS, GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TQ., MANDYA DIST.-571 438.
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN.M.Y., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, OWNER CUM CUSTODIAN OF INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND OF KSRTC, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, …APPELLANT BENGALURU-560 050. …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.971/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment & award dated 18.07.2018, whereby, the MACT, Srirangapatna, having allowed M.V.C.No.971/2016 has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,79,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. subject to usual condition of bank deposit. The appeal is founded on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation.
2. After service of notice, respondent having entered appearance through his senior panel counsel, opposes the appeal.
3. FACTS IN BRIEF:
a) In a vehicular accident that happened on 24.07.2016 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-F-8433, the claimant having suffered grievous injuries, had preferred M.V.C.No.971/2016 which was stoutly resisted by the respondent-KSRTC by filing the Written Statement;
b) to prove the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he got examined two doctors namely Dr.Paramesh as C.W.1 and Dr. Vijay Kumar as C.W.2. From his side of 191 documents came to be produced and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P191; 7 more documents were marked in the deposition of C.W.1 and C.W.2 as Ex.C1 to C.7; from the side of respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle Mr. Dharme Gowda was examined as RW.1 and no document was produced; after looking the pleadings of the parties and adverting to the evidentiary material on record, the MACT has made the impugned judgment & award.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, some relief needs to be granted by enhancing the compensation inasmuch as for the accident year 2016, the MACT has taken Rs.7,500/- to be monthly income of the claimant when even the Lok Adalath Notional Income Chart mentions Rs.9,500/-, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant; no material is shown as to which this should not be taken as a guideline factor.
5. The contention of the respondent-KSRTC that the Lok Adalath Income Chart contains only notional values and it cannot be operated as Euclid’s Theorem is true; but in the absence of any contra material having been produced from the side of KSRTC, the Notional Income Chart assumes significance. However, there is some force in the contention of the learned panel counsel that the notional income chart should be taken only as a guide line.
6. Regard being had to all the facts & circumstances of the case, the notional monthly income of the claimant is enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.9,000/- and accordingly the compensation is reworked out as under:
No Sl HEADS TRIBUNAL HIGH COURT 1
Towards Pain & Suffering 2 Towards loss of amenities Towards loss of Future 3 income Towards attendant, 4 nourishment and conveyance charges.
Towards loss of 5 income during laid up period and rest period 6 Towards Medical expenses 7 Towards future medical expenses Interim compensation already given Total In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment & award are modified by enhancing the compensation form Rs.7,79,000 to Rs.8,34,640/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Four Thousand and Six Hundred & Forty) only.
However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6% p.a. on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent; no interest would accrue during the delayed period of 26 days.
All other terms and conditions of the award are left intact; respondent to make good the deficit amount within a period of six weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS