IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.1115 OF 2017(MV) BETWEEN NARASAMMA W/O LATE HUCHAPPA AGED 62 YEARS R/O NO. 44, 6TH CROSS NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE SAJJEPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU – 560 091.
(BY SRI. H.K.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER NO-28, CENTINARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR NEAR CITY BANK, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. NAGESH RAO S/O GOPA RAO, AGED MAJOR NO.1/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD VINAYAKANAGAR, VRUSHABHAVATHINAGARA KAMAKSHI PALYA BENGALURU – 560 079.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 619/2015 ON THE FULE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH- 15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPESNATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the MACT and Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-15) in M.V.C.No.619/2015, awarding a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment towards the injuries sustained by the petitioner on account of the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.01.2015.
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 coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability incurred by the appellant to the entire body was 14% instead of 10% as assessed by the doctor as well as the medical records and other material on record. It was further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m., as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1- Insurance Company would support the impugned order.
6. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under various heads with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached evidence of the doctor-P.W.2 coupled with the medical records and other material on record which would clearly establish that the appellant had incurred permanent disability to an extent of 14% to the entire body and not 10% as wrongly held by the Tribunal. So also, the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m., in view of the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 9 x 14/100 = Rs.1,36,080/-.
9. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.64,800/- under the head loss of future earnings, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.71,280/- (Rs.1,36,080/- - Rs.64,800/-) under this head.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant is also right in contending that consequent to taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- p.m., the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.27,000/- being the loss of income for a period of three months during which period, the appellant was laid up and underwent treatment. Thus, appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
11. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.78,280/- by way of enhanced compensation as hereunder:
12. In so far as the compensation awarded under other heads is concerned, the same are just and proper and do not require interference by this Court.
13. Accordingly, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the MACT and Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-15) in M.V.C.No.619/2015 is modified by awarding additional enhanced compensation of Rs.78,280/- 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.
No costs.
bnv Sd/- JUDGE