IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.No.1333 OF 2017 C/W M.F.A No. 1334 OF 2017(MV-I) IN M.F.A.NO.1333/2017 BETWEEN P.SURESH S/O PUTTABUDDI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT MUDIGUNDA VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 441.
(BY SRI. M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. REVANNA S/O NANJAIAH, MAJOR R/AT NO. 17, BHAIRAPURA T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 032.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.305, ATCHAM MANSION, SOUTHERN EXTENSION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK – 571 440.
3. AROGYARAJ S.O.L DAS MAJOR, R/AT NO. 151 TRIVENINAGAR, BHAIRAPURA T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 032.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 & R-3 D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 363/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOLLEGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.1334/2017 BETWEEN ASHWINI W/O P.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MUDIGUNDA VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA – 571 441.
(BY SRI. M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. REVANNA S/O NANJAIAH, MAJOR R/AT NO. 17, BHAIRAPURA T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 032.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.305, ATCHAM MANSION, SOUTHERN EXTENSION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK – 571 440.
3. AROGYARAJ S.O.L DAS MAJOR, R/AT NO. 151 TRIVENINAGAR, BHAIRAPURA T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 032.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 & R-3 D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 364/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOLLEGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these two appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.C.Nos.363/2014 and 364/2014 respectively, in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.05.2014, due to which, the claimants in both the claim petitions have sustained grievous injuries.
3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of 1,44,964/- to the claimant in M.V.C.No.363/2014 and compensation of Rs.1,13,974/- to the claimant in M.V.C.No.364/2014. Being aggrieved by the same, M.F.A.No.1333/2017 and M.F.A.No.1334/2017 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
4. 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.
In M.F.A.No.1333/2017 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,500/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘loss of income during laid up period’. It is also contended that the compensation awarded towards ‘pain and sufferings’ is inadequate and the same needs to be enhanced. He therefore prays for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2014, the notional income should be taken as Rs.8,500/- per month. Hence, taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to total sum of Rs.1,27,449/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 15 x 8.33/100) towards ‘loss of future income’. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.89,964/-, the appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.37,485/- under this head.
9. Having taken the notional income of Rs.8,500/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,500/-
under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. So also, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’ in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant is also entitled to additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’.
10. Thus, in all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.87,985/- under the following heads:-
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.5,000/-
2 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
3 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.25,500/-
4 Future loss of income Rs.37,485/-
Total Rs.87,985/-
rounded off to Rs.88,000/-
In M.F.A.No.1334/2017 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘loss of income during laid up period. It is also contended that the compensation awarded towards ‘pain and sufferings’ is inadequate and the same needs to be enhanced. He therefore prays for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
13. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2014, the notional income should be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to total sum of Rs.1,27,948/-
(Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 16 x 8.33/100) towards ‘loss of future income’. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.63,974/-, the appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.63,974/- under this head.
15. Having taken the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. So also, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’ in view of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant is also entitled to additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’.
16. Thus, in all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,12,974/- under the following
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) Both the appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.Nos.363/2014 and 364/2014 are hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant in M.F.A.No.1333/2017 is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.88,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iv) The appellant-claimant in M.F.A.No.1334/2017 is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(v) The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant in both the appeals.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE