IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.3492 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA RAJU S/O PUTTAIAH @ NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A ROYANNAGARA, NELAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.KALYAN R, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT D.R.VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O VENKATESH AGED MAJOR R/A FLAT NO.10, IST FLOOR PROLOG APARTMENTS KUNDAN ELECTRONICS BACK SIDE BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE - 68 2. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 144, 3RD MAIN 5TH FLOOR, SHANTI TOWERS EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTURI NAGAR BANGALORE – 43 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:24.07.2014) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5297/2012 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDL. SCJ., AND MACT., BANGALORE, 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:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 08th July 2012,the injured filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal, by its order dated 15th July 2013 passed in MVC No.5297 of 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,160/-. Being not satisfied with the award amount, the appellant is before this court in this appeal, seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.He submits that the appellant had to undergo amputation of his great toe and was an inpatient for about six days. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering at Rs.5,000/- is very meager. Further, he submits that though the injured has claimed in the claim petition that he was earning Rs.20,000/- by doing electrical business and by teaching Karate, the Tribunal disbelieved the same and has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month which is very much on the lower side. Further he submits that though the Doctor has deposed that the injured has suffered 6% disability to the whole body, the Tribunal has erred in taking it only at 3% which is contrary to the evidence. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head food, nourishment & incidental charge and under the head disability. Hence, he submits that the compensation awarded is required to be suitably enhanced.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the appellant was a coolie and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month which has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and assessed the income at Rs.5,000/-. He also submits that the tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability a 6% whereas the Doctor has deposed that the injured has suffered 10% disability. He also submits that the Tribunal has erred in taking the laid-up period as one month. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injury, the laid up period is to be taken as four months and compensation be awarded. Hence he submits for a suitable increase in the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer supports the judgment of the Tribunal and submits that the compensation awarded is just and proper and there is no ground for interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- by doing electrical and electronic business and was teaching karate and kung fu. Though no documentary proof is produced to the same, the Courts shall take notional income based on the year of accident and number of dependents, place of residence, etc. In the instant case the accident is of the year 2012. Normally, this court, with relevance to the year of accident, takes the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Further,PW2-Doctor has deposed that the injured has suffered 12% disability to the right lower limb and 6% to the whole body. When the Doctor has deposed that the injured has suffered disability to an extent of 6% the same shall be taken and Courts cant decide that without knowing personal knowledge of avocation of the injured the Doctor cannot decide the disability. The disability has to be decided based on the medical assessment. Accordingly, in the case on hand, as deposed by the Doctor, disability is to be taken at 6%. By taking the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- and the disability at 6% the compensation under the head disability comes to Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 6% =92,160/- and the same is awarded in lieu of Rs.34,560/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering that the appellant might have taken three months rest, under the head loss of income during the laid up period another Rs.12,000/- is awarded. Considering the discomfort that the appellant had undergone another Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. Since the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards food and nourishment, I am inclined to award Rs.10,000/- towards the same. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,04,600/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,05,000/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn