IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8254 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD IRFAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O B BAVU R/AT IRFAN MANZIL NEAR JUMMA MASJID PAKIRANAKATTE MALLAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK-576101. :APPELLANT (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV.) AND:
1. SRI SANGAYYA KALLAYYA MATT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O KALLAYYA KARIBASAYYA MATT R/AT HEEREGULA BAALA VILLAGE & POST BAGALKOT TALUK-576101.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE FIRST FLOOR SHANKAR BUILDING MOSQUE ROAD UDUPI-576101 :RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1086/2011 ON THE FILE OF IN THE FAST TRACK COURT AT UDUPI AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant has preferred this appeal praying to enhance the compensation amount awarded in MVC No.1086/2011 by the Presiding Officer, FTC, Udupi, by Judgment and Award dated 23.05.2013.
2. The only grievance of the appellant is with regard to income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant / claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. as against the claim of Rs.12,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a Driver and he was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. It is the case of the appellant that this Court could not have assessed his income at Rs.4,000/- per month with reference to the year of incident since the accident had taken place on 06.07.2011. For the year 2011, a notional income of Rs.6,500/- is being considered by this court, where no income is proved.
3. This submission when examined with reference to record, it is found that there is no error committed by the Tribunal. Though the claimant claimed to be a driver, he did not produce any material or document in proof of the same and hence, notional income of Rs.4,000/- is assessed by the Tribunal. However, in similar cases, with regard to the income factor, where income of the claimant is not proved for various reasons, this Court has assessed the notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month. Hence, the income of the appellant / claimant is taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. Since the appellant has sustained fracture and treated as in-patient, loss of income during laid-up period will come to Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6500 x 3). The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.84,240/- (6500 x 12 x 18 x 6%) under the head ‘loss of future income’.
4. In the circumstances, the just and reasonable compensation to which the appellant is entitled is as follows:
Heads Amount (in Rupees)
Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Future medical expenses 10,000/-
Total Rs.2,88,740/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed, accordingly. The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,88,740/- instead of Rs.2,56,820/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal in all other respects is kept intact.
Draw modified Award accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE sac*