IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.9874 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. MAHADEVAPPA @ MADEHSA S/O. LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O. HULIGERE VILLAGE HADLUR POST SIRA TALUK-572 137. TUMAKURU DIST.
(BY SRI.V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ANIL DHIRU BAI AMBANI GROUP 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
2. SRI.P. RAMESH, S/O. PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. MADHAGVANAGARA SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTIRCT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 D/W.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1193/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLIAM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 13.04.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira, in MVC.No.1193/2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,38,800/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 9% 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 24.09.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, 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.8,000/-
p.m. instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016, the income should be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. It is also contended that pursuant to taking the notional income as Rs.9500/- p.m., the appellant-claimant would be entitled to proportionate enhancement in the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period of two months.
5. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding insufficient compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and the same requires enhancement by this Court. Lastly, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘Medical Expenses’ and ‘Attendant, food, nourishment, conveyance charges etc.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. 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.8,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines in view of the undisputed fact that the accident occurred during the year 2016. The notional income ought to have taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant incurred permanent disability to the entire body to an extent of 10%. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,05,200/- under the head ‘loss of future income’ as hereunder:
9500x12x18x10/100 = Rs.2,05,200/-
The Tribunal having already awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- under this head and consequently, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to an additional enhancement compensation in a sum of Rs.32,400/- under the head ‘loss of future income.
9. Having come to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant-claimant is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m, the compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period of two months is also required to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.3,000/-.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant is correct in contending that the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is inadequate and that the same requires to be enhanced by another Rs.10,000/-. So also, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding compensation under the head ‘Medical expenses’ as well as Attendant, food, nourishment, conveyance charges etc., and sums of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively is required to be awarded under these heads also.
10. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of
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 dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira, in MVC.No.1193/2016 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.60,400/- together with 6% interest 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.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD