IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4275/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
RAJAPPA @ RAJANNA S/O KONGALAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O AGATHAGOWDANAHALLY VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TQ., CHAMARAJANAGAR 571440.
(BY SRI.M Y SREENIVASAN, ADV.) AND:
1. PARTHIBAN S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO.33, B S COLONY HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE -560039.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTER OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE -570001.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2 R1 – NOTICE D/W V/O DT:23.09.2015) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, AT CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 29.10.2014 passed in MVC No.119/2013 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, MACT, Chamarajanagar.
2. There is no dispute with regard to the accident that occurred on 10.01.2013 involving Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-10-J-9463 and one Mahindra Pick Up Van bearing Reg.No.KA-51-9816 and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimant is in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - insurer. Perused the entire material on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the claimant is in appeal on two counts i.e., the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. It is stated that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. It is his submission that without looking to the evidence of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Further he submits that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’, on these two counts the claimant prays for enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which requires no interference. Further he submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 13.5%, taking note of the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant which also needs no interference, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as to “Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case ?” Answer to the said point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons :
The claimant states that he was earning Rs.15,000/- by doing agricultural work, but he has not placed any material to establish his income. In the absence of any material to establish the income of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month, but the same is on the lower side. This Court and Lok Adalat while settling the accident claims of the year 2013 would normally assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- wherever there is no material to establish the income. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income of the claimant, it would be appropriate to assess the income at Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the whole body disability of the claimant at 13%, which is not disputed by the claimant in this appeal. Hence the claimant would be entitled for ‘loss of future income due to disability’ by taking 13% as ‘whole body disability’ and by taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month. Looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken as inpatient for 7 days, I am of the view, that the claimant would have been out of employment for a minimum period of two months, hence he would be entitled for Rs.16,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Thus the
e. Travelling expenses 1,000/-
f. Medical, attendant Expenses 3,100/-
g. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.8,000/- x 2) 16,000/-
Total Rs.2,98,570/-
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.2,98,570/- as against Rs.2,38,890/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms