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.8844 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
Siddappa @ Salakatte Siddappa, S/o Thimmappa, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pamenahalli Village, Davanagere.
…Appellant (By Sri. Prakasha H.C, Advocate) AND:
1. Manjanna, S/o Shekarappa, Aged about 38 years, Driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-17/F-1388, R/o Salakattee Village, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District.
2. The Managing Director, Internal Security Funds, KSRTC, Bengaluru.
3. `The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere Depot, Davanagere.
… Respondents (By Sri. K. Nagaraj, Advocate for R2 and R3; Notice to R1 is dispensed with) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the Judgment and Award dated 06.07.2017 passed in MVC No.300/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Member, MACT-IV, Davanagere, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Orders, 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 MACT-IV, Davangere, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) awarding a sum of `97,224/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in favour of the appellant towards injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.08.2015.
2. Though the matter is listed under the caption Orders, 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 having regard to the Lok Adalath guidelines, which stipulated with the notional income of the claimant in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2015 is stipulated as `9,000/- per month. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as only `6,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards the “Loss of Income” during the laid up/treatment period, despite material on record, which indicated that the appellant was in-patient for a period of 52 days. However, the learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head “Loss of Injuries”, despite the material on record indicating that appellant sustained grievous injuries, on account of the accident. Lastly, it was submitted that the compensation awarded under the head “Pain and suffering” is highly inadequate and meager.
5. Per conra learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted having regard to the undisputed fact that the appellant was aged about 75 years as on the date of the accident and fracture is united and the compensation awarded in his favour is just reasonable and proper.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. Though as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the notional income in respect of accident that occurred in the year 2015, is stipulated as `9,000/-per month. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was aged about 75 years as on the date of the accident. I feel it fit and proper to take notional income as `8,000/- per month. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the permanent disability to the entire body at 12%. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of `57,600/- towards “Loss of Future earnings as hereunder -
`8,000/- x 12 x 5 x 12% = `57,600/-.
8. In view of my finding that notional income is to be taken as `8,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to `24,000/- towards “Loss of income” during the laid up period for a period of three months, which has not been awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the serious nature of injury sustained by the appellant, I deem it fit and proper to award additional sum of `20,000/-, in favour of the appellant towards “Pain and Suffering”. Lastly, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of ` 20,000/- towards “Loss of Amenities.
9. The appellant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation as stated hereunder: -
Towards Loss of future income Towards loss of income during laid up/treatment period ` 14,400/-
` 24,000/-
Towards Pain and suffering ` 20,000/-
Loss of amenities ` 20,000/-
Total ` 78,400/-
10. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation for a sum of ` 78,400/- , together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, 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 compensation of `78,400/- 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.
Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
No costs for amount in deposit.
Lower court records to be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith to enable deposit and withdrawal.
Sd/- JUDGE ag