IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.92 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN SMT.SHANTHA C., W/O BABU N., AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.374, 20TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, MARUTHINAGAR, SONNENAHALLI, BANGALORE – 56.
(BY SMT.KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE) AND 1. MURUGESH A., S/O ARUNGIRI, MAJOR, NO.24, 9TH CORSS, ARUNDATHINAGAR CHANDRALAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI POST, BANGALORE – 560 039.
2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., R O, NO.28, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2332/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH – 17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC.No.2332/2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,75,573/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization towards the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.10.2014.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant-claimant as Rs.6,000/-
p.m. as against Rs.8,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is therefore contended that by taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/-p.m., the appellant- claimant would be entitled to additional compensation in view of the undisputed fact that the appellant- claimant has incurred permanent disability to the extent of 35% to the entire body. It is also contended that consequent upon the notional income is taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m., the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a proportionate enhancement under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period. Lastly, it was contended that having regard to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant- claimant in the accident, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’ to the appellant-claimant.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant- claimant as Rs.6,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.8,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred during the year 2015. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,85,640/- under the head ‘loss of future income’ as hereunder:
8500x12x14x13/100 = Rs.1,85,640/-
The Tribunal having already awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,040/- under this head. Therefore, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.54,600/- (Rs.1,85,840/- - Rs.1,31,040/-) by way of additional compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’.
7. Consequent to coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant has to be taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m., the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.25,500/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period of 3 months as held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards ‘loss of income’ and the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.7,500/- under this head.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is right in contending that having regard to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant- claimant in the accident, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’. Accordingly, I deem it fit and proper to award additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’. In so far as the other heads is concerned, no interference is called for by this Court.
9. So also, the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.4,000/- under the head ‘Attendant, food, diet etc. charges’.
10. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.91,100/- together with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization as here under:
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 15.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC.No.2332/2015 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.91,100/- together with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iv) The additional enhancement compensation amount is directed to be released in favour of the appellant-claimant.
(v) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD