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.2098 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.SADIQ PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT CHRISTIAN STREET, PANDURANGANAGARA, TUMAKURU CITY ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.GOPALKRISHNA.N., ADV.) AND:
1. SMT.K.V.TEJESHWARI W/O T.G.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SHISHUVIHARA, AGRAHARA, TUMKUR CITY – 572 101 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MBAV MANSION, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, M.G.ROAD, ABOVE UCO BANK, GENERAL KARYAPPA ROAD, TUMKUR CITY – 572 101 REP: BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:28.03.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1376/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MEMBER, AMACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR 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 09th June, 2015 the injured made claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 08th June, 2017 passed in MVC No.1376 of 2015 awarded compensation of Rs.5,53,193/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though in the claim petition it is claimed by the claimant that he was working as labour in Hanuman Rice Mill and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, the same has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and has taken the income at Rs.250/- per day. The learned counsel further submits that thethough the injured has sustained permanent physical disability of 28.83%, the Tribunal has taken it at 20% which is also on the lower side. Further, the learned counsel also submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also meager in side and hence he prays for suitable enhancement in the compensation.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation based on the material documents produced and the oral evidence adduced before it. He submits that there is no ground for interference and hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. The injured has claimed that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as labourer in Hanuman Rice Mill. No one has been examined in support of that or no documentary evidence has been produced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.250/- per day and at Rs.7,500/- per month. In the cases where income is not proved by producing any documentary or oral evidence, the courts have to take notional income based on the place of residence, year of accident, number of dependents, cost of living prevalent then, etc. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2015. With relevance to the accident of 2015, this court, consistently takes the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and the same is taken in this case also. Secondly, as regard the disability is concerned, it has come in evidence that the injured as sustained 28.83% permanent disability. The Tribunal has taken it at 20%. The Doctor has deposed that the injuries suffered by the injured at permanent physical disability and the injured cannot get involved in heavy manual work. Considering the age of the appellant, I deem it appropriate to take the disability at 23%. Accordingly, the compensation under the head loss of future income comes to Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 14 x 23% which comes to Rs.3,47,760/-, the same is awarded as against Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Taking the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and considering the nature of injury sustained, it is presumed that the injured might have taken rest for four months and the loss of income during the laid up period would be Rs.36,000/-. The same is awarded inclusive of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Further, considering the period of hospitalization of the father as also the injured minor daughter, I am inclined to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head food and nourishment & conveyance. In the result, the total enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,15,760/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn