IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2169/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.GANAPATHI RAMA MOGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. RAMA MOGER R/AT SHIROOR VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 124.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT.M, ADV.) AND 1. SRI.MARUTHI.M.NAIK, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. NAGAPPA NAIK, R/O. HARKALI CHITRAPURA SHIRALI, BHATKAL TALUK, U.K.DISTRICT – 581 354.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNDAPURA BRANCH, PUSHPA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADV. FOR R2 SRI.S.N.NAIK, ADV. FOR R1) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.938/2015 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 ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant is the claimant and is before this Court being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura.
3. Though the appeal is listed for ‘Admission’, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for disposal in view of the fact that the appeal lies in a narrow compass.
4. The factum of accident and the injuries suffered are not in dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sums awarded under the various heads are on the lower side. He would also contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting notional income at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per months despite the claim of the appellant that he was working as a Mason. He would further contend that in respect of claims that arise in the year 2015, even in the Lok-Adalath, notional income is adopted at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the findings rendered by the Tribunal and submits that the findings of the Tribunal do not call for any interference.
7. Having perused the judgment and award and cogent reasoning given by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the short question that arise for consideration is:
‘Whether the award represents a just and reasonable compensation?’ 8. There is no dispute with regard to the injuries suffered, the percentage of disability and multiplier that is adopted by the Tribunal.
9. This Court has adverted to the reasoning and factual aspects of the case and is of the opinion that the sum awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ appears to be on the lower side. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant has suffered Type II open right proximal Tibia fracture and fracture of Fibula and has under gone hospitalization and was an inpatient for a period of 10 days. Hence, the appellant would be entitled for further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In respect of the accident and the claims that arise in the year 2015, the notional income generally adopted is at Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, the appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of disability’. The income of the claimant is taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the appellant would be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.43,680/- under the head ‘loss of earnings on account of disability’.
11. In view of the Court adopting notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled for a further sum of Rs.14,000/- under the head of ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’.
12. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered, the appellant would be required to under go medical supervision in future also. Hence, an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Future Medical Expenses and amenities’.
13. In all, the appellant would be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.77,680/- rounded off to Rs.78,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,34,600/-.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR