IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8233 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.MUNIYAPPA S/O. SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NO. 41, GANGAVARA VILLAGE, BUDIGERE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT.SUNITHA B.H. ADV. FOR SRI.SURESH M LATUR, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, NO.230, AMBEDKAR COLONY, BABUSAB PALYA, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 045.
2. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.8, III FLOOR, K.S.C.M.E. BUILDING, 3RD BLOCK, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 18.08.2017) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2715/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. IA.I of 2016 is filed seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA.I of 2016 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. Appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The only ground confined and argued by the learned counsel is with regard to awarding of compensation under the head loss of future income. The learned counsel submits that while awarding the compensation under the head loss of future income, the income has been taken at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is contrary to the case of the claimant. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that the injured was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but has not provided any documentary proof to that extent.
3. Heard the learned counsel. Undisputedly, the claimant is aged about 70 and it is hard to believe that he was earning Rs.70,000/- per month at this age. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of producing any document to prove that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, it is not the case to interfere in the appeal. However, since the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities, it is appropriate to award global compensation of another Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is awarded. Appeal stands disposed of.
lnn Sd/- JUDGE