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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2695 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
Puttananjamma W/o Late Kempegowda, Aged about 50 years, R/o Kodishettipura Village, K Shettahalli Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District-571 438.
(By Sri. Sreenivasan M.Y, Advocate) AND:
1. Krishna K, Major, S/o Late Kempegowda, R/at No.723, Ground Floor, 1st Stage, Main 5th Cross, Basaveshwaranagara, Mysuru-570 017.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, V.V.Road, Mandya-571 401.
(By Sri. Srishaila, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 is dispensed with) …Appellant … Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the Judgment and Award dated 06.01.2018 passed in MVC No.1180/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Srirangapatna, 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 filed by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Srirangapatna, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) awarding a sum of ` 4,15,416/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in favour of the appellant towards injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.08.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed under the caption Admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both learned counsel submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as the coverage of the offending vehicle by Insurance Company are not in dispute and the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant as `7,500/- per month as against ` 9,000/- per month, in view of the undisputed fact that the accident being of the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken as `9,500/- per month as per Lok-Adalath guidelines. Learned counsel also submits that proportionately appellant would be entitled to “Loss of income” during the laid up/treatment period for a period of two months at the rate of `9,500/- per month. So also, it is contended that the appellant is entitled to additional sum of `12,000/- towards “Food, Diet and etc., in view of the fact that sum of `3,000/- awarded is highly inadequate.
5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the Lok Adalath guidelines that stipulate notional income in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016 as `9,500/-, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income only as `7,500/- per month. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that disability to the entire body should be assessed as 25%. The appellant would be entitled to total compensation of `3,70,500/- under the head loss of future income as hereunder- `9,500 x 12 x 13x 25% = `3,70,500/-
8. The appellant having awarded a sum of `2,92,500/- under this head, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of `78,000/- under the head of “Loss of future earnings”.
9. Consequent to coming to the conclusion that notional income is to be taken as `9,500/- per month, the loss of income during the treatment/laid up period would come to `19,000/- as against `15,000/- and the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of `4,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, who was in-patient for a period of 12 days on account of the accident, the appellant would be entitled for an additional sum of `12,000/- under the head Food, Diet and etc., The compensation awarded under other heads is just and proper and same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant would be entitled to sum of `94,000/- by way of additional compensation as detailed hereunder:-
Towards Loss of future income Towards loss of income during treatment/laid up period `78,000/-
`4,000/-
Towards Food, diet etc., `12,000/-
Total `94,000/-
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified awarding an additional enhanced compensation of `94,000/- in favour of the appellant.
iii. The enhanced compensation would carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
iv. The entire enhanced compensation together with interest is directed to be released in favour of the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE ag