IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.8648 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.ANANDA S/O CHANNAPPA @ CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARCHAKARA HALLI, RAMANAGARA TOWN AND DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAJU.S., ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.RAJU V.H.
S/O VENKATARAJU G, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT AGALAHALLI VILLAGE, AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, NEXT TO MANDOVI MOTORS, KRISHNA COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.274/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant herein approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in the accident that took place on 22nd August, 2012. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 5th June, 2014 passed in MVC No.274 of 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,495/- with six percent interest per annum. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, this appeal is preferred seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the meager side. He submits that though the claimant in the claim petition claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the same is disbelieved by the Tribunal and has taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month which is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the head pain and agony and under the heads nourishment and conveyance is also on the lower side. Hence, he submits that the compensation may be suitably enhanced.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on the evidence adduced and the documentary evidence produced. Hence, there is no ground for interference and he prays for dismissal of the appellant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award of the Tribunal. In the accident apart from the other injuries the appellant has suffered fracture of tibia, which is a grievous injury. As per Exhibit P11 which is the inpatient record of the hospital, the petitioner was an inpatient in the said hospital for about six days and it shows that the claimant had been treated for two bones and fracture has been corrected by using nailing of tibia. The Doctor who was examined as PW2 has deposed that the disability has caused difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged and movements of left knee and ankle joints are restricted and the injured has suffered 27% disability to the lower limb and 9% to the whole body. The claimant has stated in the claim petition that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the same and has taken it at Rs.4,500/- per month. When no documentary evidence is produced for the claimed income, the courts should take the notional income based on the year of accident, place of residence, cost of living prevalent then, etc. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2012 and the appellant was aged 38 years, at the time of accident. It is to be assumed that the appellant might have married and had to take care of his family and his parents too. Considering those things, this court asses the income of the appellant at Rs.7,500/- per month. Accordingly the compensation under the head loss of future income would be Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 15 x 7% which comes to Rs.94,500/- and the same is awarded as against Rs.56,700/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the age of the appellant it is presumed that the appellant might have taken at least four months for recovering and hence an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during the treatment period. Considering the pain and agony undergone by the appellant, this court is of the year to award another Rs.45,000/- under the head pain and agony; and Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards Rest Nourishment as against Rs.1,000/- ; similarly Rs.3,000/- is awarded under the head conveyance as against Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly the total compensation comes to Rs.1,39,800/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,40,000/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part.
lnn Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE