IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.7545/2015 (MV) BETWEEN MANJUNATHA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND ARECANUT BUSINESS, RESIDING AT HIREGUNTANUR, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. JHON FRANK S/O JOSEPH FRAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-16/A-8099, R/O BEHIND NAVEEN REGENCY, BL GOWDA LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE MAGANOOR BASAPPA COMPLEX B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1-SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.263/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-4 CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 04/06/2015 in M.V.C.No.263/2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & IV MACT, Chitradurga.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 02-02-2013, the claimant was proceeding from Bommenahally to Bheemasamudra on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-Q-5801 for his personal work, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16/A-8099 driven by its driver came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s motor cycle. As a result, claimant sustained injuries and he was immediately shifted to chitradurga district Hospital. It is further stated that the claimant is an agriculturist having areca nut garden and other irrigated lands, by which he was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per year. He was aged 40 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. Further it is contended that the claim of the appellant is highly vogue, excessive and abnormal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-2 and PW-3 as Doctor, apart from marking documents Ex.P-1 to P-57. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company marked document Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, on the following
taking multiplier of ‘15’ for the age of 40 years. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- per month, when the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per year. Thus, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference.
9. On hearing learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation.
10. The accident is of the year 2013, involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-Q-5801, lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16/A-8099 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant stated that he is an agriculturist having areca nut garden and other irrigated lands, was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per year. The claimant in support of his contention that he was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per year, has not produced not even a piece of document to prove his income. In the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- notionally, the said assessment is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok Adalath while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident cases would normally take notional income for the accidents of the year 2013 at Rs.8,000/- per month. In the present case also there is no piece of document to indicate the exact income of the claimant. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to take Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant for determination of the compensation on the head of ‘Loss of Future earning capacity due to disability’.
11. From the judgment and award, it is seen that the Tribunal has granted the compensation on the head of ‘Permanent Disability’ Rs.1,17,000/- taking disability of the claimant at 10% and the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.39,000/- towards ‘Future prospectus’ (50% of Rs.6500x12=39000). When the Tribunal awards compensation on the head of ‘Permanent disability’ i.e., ‘Loss of Future earning capacity due to disability’, again granting compensation on ‘Future prospectus’ in an injury case would not arise. Thus, the claimant would not be entitled for the compensation on the head of ‘Future Prospectus’ at Rs.39,000/-. But the claimant would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of ‘Loss of Future earning capacity due to disability’. The Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 10% looking into the PW-3-Doctor’s evidence and the medical records, which needs no interference. The claimant had suffered fracture of ribs and 2nd and 3rd toe. Ex-P27 is wound certificate. Claimant was inpatient at Vikram Hospital, Mysore from 3-2-2013 to 7-2-2013. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of Conveyance, Attendant, Food & Nourishment. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- on those heads. Thus, the claimant-appellant would be entitled for modified compensation as follows:
7. Conveyance, Attendant, Food and nourishment 15,000 Total 3,84,000 12. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for modified compensation of Rs.3,84,000 as against Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ/HB