IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE. S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5637/2018 BETWEEN:
PURUSHOTHAMMA S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT: OORUKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 577 501. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SATHISHA .T. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRIKANTH .R S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO.31, SEEGEHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, NEAR RTO OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 049.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, MAGMA HDI GENERAL INUSRANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO.36, H.M.ASTRID, 2ND FLOOR, J.C.ROAD, MINERVA CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRADEEP .B. ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1487/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENCHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT I.A 1/2018 is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Perusal of the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application, in particular at paras 3 to 6 will indicate that the delay in preferring the appeal is on account of bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit in support of the application, I.A 1/2018 for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal is hereby allowed.
2. Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of both the counsel, this matter is taken up for final disposal. Both the counsel submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as coverage of the vehicle in question by the insurance company is not in dispute and the present appeal restricted to enhancement of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal having regard to the undisputed fact that the accident has occurred in the year 2013, the tribunal committed in error in taking notional income of the appellant as Rs. 5,000/- p.m., instead of 8,000/- p.m., as per the lokadalath guidelines. Therefore it is contended that the compensation under the head loss of future income, loss of income towards laid up period are highly inadequate and the same requires enhancement by this Court. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/- , is highly meager and inadequate having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads, is also insufficient and the same requires enhancement by this court.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment and award.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of rival parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant at Rs.5000/- pm instead of quantifying loss of future income at Rs.48,000/-. In this context, it is relevant to note that in view of the undisputed fact that the accident has occurred in the year 2013, the notional income of the appellant ought to have been taken as Rs.8000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.28,800/- under the head loss of future income.
6. In so far as compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head pain and suffering is concerned, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
7. Having regard to my finding that the notional income of the appellant is to be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m, the appellant is also entitled proportionate compensation for loss of income during laid up period. Accordingly the appellant would be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In the circumstances, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.49,800/- which is rounded of to Rs.50,000/- together with the interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that in view of the long delay of 700 days in preferring the present appeal, the appellant would not be entitled for interest during the said period of delay. Hence I pass the following order:
This appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 10.05.2016 is modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization excluding the period of 700 days as stated above.
Sd/- JUDGE NM