IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.8091 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN SRI MANJUNATH M. S/O. MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O. MUGANAHALLI VILLAGE GULIGENAHALLI POST SIRA TALUK-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. I FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX AMBEDKAR ROAD SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY S/O. CHIKKAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. NO.379/1, 19TH A MAIN MUNESHWARA LOCK BENGALURU – 560 026 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.685/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, 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 This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Sira (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.685/2017, partly allowing the claim petition filed by the appellant by awarding total compensation a sum of Rs.2,40,800/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit towards the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.04.2017.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Counsel for both the parties submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that with regard to Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulated that the notional income in respect to an accident that occurred in the year 2017 is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. The Tribunal committed an error in assessing the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. This has, in turn, resulted in the Tribunal awarding the appellant with an insufficient compensation. It is also contended that the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’ quantified as Rs.18,000/- by the Tribunal is inadequate and the same also requires to be proportionately enhanced. It was further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘Pain and suffering’ which is meager and the same needs to be enhanced by this Court. Lastly, it was contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘food and nutrition’ as well as ‘medical expenses’, the compensation has to be awarded under this head also. Under these circumstances, the appellant requests for enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2017, the notional income should be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, taking the notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.38,400/- (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 16 x 10/100 = Rs.2,11,200 – Rs.1,72,800/- awarded by the Tribunal = Rs.38,400/-) towards ‘loss of future income’.
8. Consequently, having come to the conclusion that the notional income of the appellant is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month, the appellant would be entitled to proportionate increase in compensation under the head ‘Loss of income during the laid up period’. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,000/- under this head.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘food and nutrition’ as well as ‘medical expenses’. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively under these heads.
10. Lastly, having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head ‘Pain and suffering’ is highly insufficient and meager and the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the appellant is entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.67,400/- under the following heads:-
1 Loss of future income Rs.38,400/-
2 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.4,000/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
4 Food and Nutrition Rs.10,000/-
5 Medical expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.67,400/-
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Sira in M.V.C.No.685/2017 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.67,400/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The enhanced compensation is directed to be released in favour of the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY