IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT M.F.A. NO.3156 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN Hanumanthappa, S/o Olganna, Aged about 48 years, Black Smith, R/o Doddabyaldakere gate, Hosadurga Taluk.
(By Sri. Shashidhara, Advocate) AND 1. S. Rahamatulla, S/o GhouseMohiddin, Aged Major, Owner of Lorry, R/o Behind Fort Suinhhulur Talkies, Chikkanallur, Dadur District.
.. Appellant 2. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Enkey Complex, Hubli. ... Respondents (By Sri. C.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 dispensed with) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 20.08.2009 passed in MVC No.477/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Holalkere, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal by the claimant calls in question the judgment and award dated 20.08.2009 made by MACT, Holalkere, allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.477/2007 whereby, a compensation of Rs.2,89,575/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, subject to a usual condition of three year bank deposit has been, awarded. The challenge is on the ground that the award is on the lower side.
2. The rash and negligent driving, the consequential vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle and the resultant injury to the claimant are held to be proved by the MACT, looking to the pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material borne out by record.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contends that the amputation of right leg below knee above the foot has caused 100 % occupational disability to the claimant who happens to be the black smith by occupation; therefore, the compensation ought to have been on the higher side. He further submits that the monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- when the Lok Adalat Income Chart mentions Rs.4,000/- and this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to, by the MACT. Lastly, he submits that regard being had to the age of the claimant, the MACT ought to have taken 14 as the multiplier and not 13 and that compensation ought have been awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’.
4. The learned Panel Counsel for the respondent- Insurer, per contra, submits that the medical witness PW.2 had deposed 60 % medical disability and based on that, the MACT has recorded 50% occupational disability and therefore, the same cannot be found fault with; the Lok Adalat Income Chart is only a chart of notional values, more particularly, meant for people residing in the cities and therefore, the values mentioned therein cannot be taken as Euclid’s Theorem and they are only in the nature of guideline values and therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the MACT as to the income of the injured being taken at Rs.3,000/-; thirdly, he also justifies no award being made under the head ‘loss of amenities’ in the given circumstances.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent- Insurer. I have perused the Appeal Papers & the LCR.
6. The contention of the claimant as aforesaid, has some force; however, the MACT being the statutory adjudicatory body, having the advantage of accumulated wisdom in the trade, this court ordinarily does not interfere with it’s findings. However, regard being had to the nature of injury, the kind of treatment, the occupational disability and such other relevant factors, an additional award of Rs.50,000/- in all, would make a just and reasonable compensation.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and award are modified, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,89,575/- to Rs.3,39,575/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five) only. The deficiency shall be made good by the respondent-Insurer within four weeks. No interest shall accrue on the delayed period of 142 days, in filing the Appeal.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc