IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR MFA NO.580 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SAYYED HASSAN @ HASSAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O ALLABHAKSHA R/O KODI, KUNDAPURA KASBA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K.P. KUTTY AGED MAJOR S/O PALANI GOUNDER R/O 12/87, KANNAM PALIKADU T. GODE ROAD, SANKARI TALUK SALEM DISTRICT – 637 301 TAMILNADU.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD. SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING CLUB HOUSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, ANNASALAI CHENNAI – 600 002 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 D/W V/O/DTD: 20.01.2016) ---
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant having suffered RTA on 30.08.2012, on filing claim petition, the Tribunal by its order dated 07.10.2014 awarded compensation of Rs.14,62,740/-. The ground taken for enhancement of compensation is that the income of the appellant taken at Rs.5,500/- by the Tribunal, against which this appeal is filed on the following grounds:
Firstly, the income has been assessed at 50% over and above Rs.15,000/- claimed before the Tribunal and while rejecting the claim, no reasons have been assigned. Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.15,000/- p.m. Secondly, the accident he has suffered is amputation of right leg and the Tribunal has considered the disability at 70% and the same should have been taken at 100%. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that amputation has to be considered for the purpose of disability at 100%.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance company submits that the compensation has been awarded considering all aspects of both the parties and no ground is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that amputation is to be considered for the purpose of disability at 100% cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that disability has to be assessed depending upon the nature of injuries namely, mental disability, neurological disability, etc. Under these circumstances, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 70% is to be confirmed.
6. Having regard to the income of the claimant, nothing has been produced to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. It is true that persons like appellant, whose job is carpenter or mason, they may not have any income proof, etc. Under these circumstances, this Court consistently assessed the notional income by considering place of residence, year of accident and age of the injured. Considering the age of the appellant who was aged 35 years and is residing in Kundapura Village, Udupi Taluk and District, the notional income would be taken at Rs.10,000/-. Hence, loss of future earning capacity would come to Rs.13,44,000/- (10,000x70%x12x16). Towards pain and sufferings another Rs.20,000/- is awarded; and towards loss of amenities another Rs.40,000/- is awarded. The compensation awarded under the heads medical expenses, loss of earning during laid up period and future medical expenses remain undisturbed. In all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.17,57,940/-.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.14,62,740/- to Rs.17,57,940/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a.
The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be transmitted to the MACT.
Liberty is reserved to the appellant to produce the bill to the respondent – Insurance company for the purpose of providing artificial limb. If such medical bills and representations are made available, the respondent – Insurance company is directed to consider for the purpose of awarding such compensation.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ca