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.563 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.MANJUNATH S/O.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.18, NEELAKANTAPPA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, DEVANSANDRA, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 36 (BY SRI.N.GOPALA KRISHNA, ADV.) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. SRI.V.MUNIRAJU S/O.VENKATARAMANAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE & POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7519/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 4TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered by the appellant in the road traffic accident, he made a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 15th February, 2012 passed in MVC No.7519 of 2010 awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by award of the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error rejecting the petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In a petition filed under Section 163-A, negligence aspect need not be gone into. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon a decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs., Sunil Kumar & another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710. Further, he submits that the appellant had suffered 100% functional disability due to head injury. The compensation awarded is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurer submits as the claimant himself being a tort-feaser, he cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act. Hence the Tribunal has arrived at a proper conclusion and has awarded just compensation. There is no ground for interference and hence prays to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case relied upon, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not open for the Insurer to raise a defence of negligence on the part of the victim. In that view of the matter, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A is to be considered. The evidence on of PW2 Doctor shows that the appellant suffers from permanent partial disability. Since the functional disability is stated as 100%, to the whole body the disability can be taken at 50%. Accordingly it is taken. The claimant has stated in the claim petition that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by driving heavy goods vehicle. There is no evidence adduced or documents produced to that effect. In that view of the matter, considering the age of the appellant, income of the appellant is taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum. Since the petitioner was aged 22 at the time accident, the applicable multiplier would be 18.
Hence, the calculation would be Rs.40,000/- x 18 x 50/100 which comes to Rs.3,60,000/-, the same is awarded under the head loss of future earnings. Further, towards pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of earning during the laid up period, Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Accordingly, the total compensation would be Rs.3,75,000/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of disbursement. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn