IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.471 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN NAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK S/O DHANANARAJ NAYAK NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT BOOKSAGARA POST MATHOD HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK AND ALSO RESIDING AT THONACHANAKUPPE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (BY SRI RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE) AND 1. VASUDEVA GUPTA S V S/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED MAJOR NO.71, 1ST MAIN TELECOM COLONY NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 026 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD 5TH FLOOR KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4599/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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 26.11.2016 passed by the learned XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.4599/2015, partly allowing the claim petition filed by the appellant by awarding a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,885/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of the petition till realization towards the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 21.10.2015.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel of 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 is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. In this context, he invites my attention to the Lok Adalat guidelines in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2015, the notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, he further contended that the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation by taking the notional income in a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant invites my attention to the evidence of the Doctor – PW-2 who has categorically stated that the disability to the entire body is 13%. In this context, it is submitted that having regard to in aforesaid unimpeached evidence of the Doctor (PW-2), the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the disability of the appellant was only 8% not 13%. It is further submitted that the appellant would be entitled to the enhanced compensation taking the permanent disability of him to the entire body as 13%. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards ‘Pain and suffering’ without appreciating. Having regard to the nature of serious and grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellant is highly inadequate and insufficient. It was also contended that a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head ‘ Loss of future amenities and happiness’ is insufficient and the same requires to be enhanced. Lastly, consequent to taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation under the head ‘Loss of future income due to permanent disability’ for a period of three months at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month.
Under these circumstances, the appellant requests for enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the unimpeached evidence of Doctor (PW-2) who has categorically stated that the appellant has suffered total disability to the entire body to an extent of 13%, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability to the entire body is taken as 8% for the purpose of computing the loss of future income due to permanent disability. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant for entire body is to be taken as 13%.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in contending that Lok Adalat guidelines stipulate that the notional income in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2015 is to be taken in a sum of Rs.9,000/-per month instead of Rs.7,000/- per month as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, taking the notational income as Rs.9,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,31,760/- (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 18 x 13/100 = Rs.2,52,720 – Rs.1,20,960/- awarded by the Tribunal = Rs.1,31,760/-) towards ‘loss of future income due to permanent disability’.
9. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding a meager sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head ‘Pain and suffering’, which requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-
10. Having come to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month, the sum of Rs.21,000/- awarded under the head ‘Loss of income during the laid up period’ is to be enhanced and the appellant would be entitled to proportionate increase in the compensation under this head, In this regard, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.6,000/- towards ‘Loss of income during the laid up period’.
11. Lastly, having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of future amenities and happiness’ is highly insufficient and meager and the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, in all, the appellant is entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,760/- under the following heads:-
1 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-
2 Loss of future income Rs.1,31,760/-
3 Loss of income during laid up period 4 Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.6,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,62,760/-
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bangalore in MVC.No.4599/2015 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,760/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY