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.6209 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.HARISH G.D.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O DASEGOWDA T.M. R/A GUNNAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST – 572 122 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADV.) AND:
1. MANOHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA SHETTY, R/A KANAKAMGUTHU, UCHEELA POST, MATHUR, UDUPI DIST. – 575 081 2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, M.G ROAD, MANGALORE-03 REP. BY ITS MANAGER MANGALORE – 03 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, 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:18.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.116/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MEMBER OF ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNIGAL, 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 For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 20th October, 2010, the injured made claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunigal. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 18th January, 2013 passed in MVC No.116 of 2011 awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,300/-. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the income and the disability suffered by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded is very much on the lower side. Hence, he prays for suitable enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurer supports the judgment and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and there is no ground for interference in the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment. Accident is not in dispute. In the accident the appellant has suffered the following injuries:
(i) fracture of right humerous with compound fracture distal phaly left great toe;
(ii) abrasion over the left foot injury;
(iii) abrasion over the forehead;
(iv) Tenderness over the left leg.
5. As opined by the Doctor, the injuries are grievous in nature. The accident is of the year 2015. In the claim petition, it was the claim of the appellant that he was doing carpentry work and was earning Rs.250/- per day and by agriculture work he was earning Rs.50,000/- annually. Though the appellant has claimed so, in the absence of producing any documentary evidence, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income. The notional income has to be assessed 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 2015. With relevance to the accident of the year 2105, this court consistently takes the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Accordingly, the same is taken in this appeal also. Hence, the calculation under the head future loss of income would come to Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 18 x 6.6% which comes to Rs.1,06,920/- and the same is awarded as against Rs.57,024/- awarded by the Tribunal. By taking Rs.7,500/- income per month and considering that the appellant had taken three months bed-rest, the compneation under the head loss of earning during the laid- up period comes to Rs.22,500/- the same is awarded as against Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the agony undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to award another Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head attendant cost and special in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. In total the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,14,396/-. Interest also has to be awarded to the said amount. In that view of the matter, in my considered view, awarding another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded. It is made clear that the same shall not carry any interest.
Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn