IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5586/2012(MV) BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A HALLADAKERI EXTENSION AGASARA STREET, HARIHAR.
(BY SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHY., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. B. RAGHAVA UDUPA S/O GOPALA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DRIVER OF MARUTHI ALTO CAR BEARING REG. NO. KA 20-N-2418, R/O BALAKUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. B. SHREEDHARA UDUPA S/O GOPALA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OWNER OF MARUTHI ALTO CAR BEARING REG.NO KA 20-N-2418, R/A BALAKUR VILLAGE, NEAR VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE, KUNDAPUR TALUK.
... APPELLANT 3. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UDUPI.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1034/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT., HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This is a claimant’s appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 15.02.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Harihar in MVC.No.1034/2008 and has sought for enhancement of compensation.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records.
3. In a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.10.2008, appellant – claimant is said to have sustained injuries and suffered consequential disability and as such has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and seeking compensation. Tribunal, after considering pleadings and evidence of the parties, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization under the following heads:
4. There is no dispute with regard to the accident in question and issuance of policy and same being in force as on date of accident. Hence, these aspects are not delved upon in this appeal as it would be repetition of facts.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for appellant – claimant has contended that compensation awarded under all heads are abysmally on the lower side. He contends that claimant was working as a bar bender and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and Tribunal while arriving at the compensation towards ‘loss of future income due to disability’, has taken his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-3 would contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it would clearly indicate that Tribunal has awarded just compensation under all heads except under the head ‘loss of future income’.
8. In the accident in question, claimant had sustained head injuries and fracture of 3rd rib, lateral end of left clavicle and left temporal parietal region. On account of said injuries, claimant underwent surgery. Doctor - P.W.2 has deposed that claimant had suffered mental disability to an extent of 40% and physical disability to an extent of 30%. Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 – disability certificates would also disclose that on account of said disability, claimant would not be in a position to attend to his daily activities and he requires continuous treatment. Tribunal, after evaluation of entire medical evidence available on record, has rightly assessed the disability of the claimant at 40% .
9. P.W.1 – claimant has deposed in his evidence he was working as Bar Bender and earning Rs.15,000/- per month but has not produced any document to substantiate his income. Therefore, Tribunal has taken notional income of claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month and by adopting multiplier of ‘17’ with disability at 40%, has awarded compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- towards ‘loss of future income’. Accident is of the year 2008 and taking into consideration the avocation of the claimant being Bar Bender, this Court is of the considered view that claimant would have earned atleast Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month and disability at 40%. By adopting the multiplier of ‘17’, compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ would be:
Rs.6000 x 40% = Rs.2,400/- Rs.2,400/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.4,89,600/-.
Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,44,800/- under this head and after deducting the same, claimant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- and it is accordingly awarded.
10. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. In view of the fact that this Court has taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-, he would be entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ in a sum of Rs.36,000/-
(Rs.6,000/- x 6 months = Rs.36,000/-). By deducting the amount awarded by the Tribunal, claimant would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- under this head and it is accordingly awarded.
11. Thus, claimant would be entitled additional compensation of Rs.2,62,800/- under the following heads:
12. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
JUDGMENT (1) Appeal is allowed in part.
(2) Judgment and award dated 15.02.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Harihar in MVC No. 1034/2008 is modified and an additional compensation of Rs.2,62,800/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.
(3) Order made by the Tribunal for deposit and release shall hold good for enhanced compensation also.
(4) Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(5) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
SD/- JUDGE *sp