Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.421 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. SENTHIL NATHAN G SON OF GNANASHEKARAN B AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SINCE THE APELLANT IS IN COMA REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI. GNANASHEKARAN B.
SON OF LATE A. BALA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO. 838, 28TH STREE 2ND PHASE, SATHUVACHARI VELLORE, TAMIL NADU – 632 009. (BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.31, TBR TOWER, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE & BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE BENGALURU – 560 023.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
... PETITIONER 2. CONSTRUCTION SOLUTION (BENGALURU) PRIVATE LTD., YESHWANTHAPUR, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB, 2ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU -22.
3. ICICI LOMBARD GENREAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 69, SVR COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA BENGALURU – 34.
4. M/S. CIPEASY TRANSPORT SOLUTION (P) LTD., NO. 12/10, 1ST FLOOR ABOVE VIJAYA BANK MSR MAIN ROAD GOKULA, BENGALURU – 54.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE DISPENSED WITH TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 4; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.11.2018 PASSED IN THE MFA NO. 334/2013 (MV), AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION TAKING 100% FUTURE PROPECTS IN RESPECT OF LOSS FUTURE EARNINGS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMSSION THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This review petition is filed by the appellant- claimant, contending that there is an error apparent in this Court’s Order dated 9.11.2018 passed in MFA No.334/2013.
2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-, and this Court vide order dated 9.11.2018 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,19,50,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner argues that there is an error apparent in this Court’s Order dated 9.11.2018 because this Court has not granted enhancement in the compensation towards loss of future prospects despite the canvass for enhancement in the compensation even under this head, and this canvass being recorded in the course of the order. The review petitioner, in the light of the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, would be entitled for enhancement in the compensation awarded even under the head of loss of future prospects.
4. The undisputed evidence on record, which is also accepted by this Court while disposing the appeal granting enhancement in the compensation as aforesaid, is that the review petitioner at the time of the accident was working as a software engineer with a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- per month and that because he was reduced to a vegetative state, he was terminated from employment. The Tribunal, based on such evidence, has taken the loss of earning capacity at 100% and has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/- (Rs.50,000 x 12 x 17) as compensation towards loss of future earning. The multiplier of ‘17’ is taken because the review petitioner was aged about 28 years as of the date of the accident.
5. It is settled that in cases where loss of future prospects is established, appropriate addition will have to be made to ensure that there is a just and reasonable compensation. In the present case, because the review petitioner is undisputedly rendered paraplegic and consequentially has been without any employment, the loss of future prospects is established, and appropriate addition towards loss of future prospects would be necessary to ensure that a just and reasonable compensation is awarded. The review petitioner, because he was in permanent employment and was aged 26 years as of the date of the accident, would be entitled to an addition towards loss of future prospects at 50% of the actual monthly income with appropriate capitalization thereafter. The review petitioner, with such addition and appropriate capitalization, would be entitled for a further enhancement in compensation in a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- computed as follows:
Amount awarded by the tribunal towards loss of future earning – A The total amount towards loss of future income, including the loss of future prospects with the addition of 50% of the monthly income – B The difference between A – B Rs.50,000/- x 12 x 17 x 100% = Rs.1,20,00,000/-
Rs.50,000/- x 12 x 17 x 150% = Rs.1,53,00,000/-
Rs. 51,00,000/-
In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there is an error apparent in the order dated 9.11.2018 and as such, the review petition deserves to be accepted.
6. For the foregoing, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 9.11.2018 passed in MFA No. 334/2013 is reviewed and recalled to the extent that the review petitioner - the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.51,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company - the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit this further enhanced sum of Rs.51,00,000/-within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nv* ct:sr RP 421/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI. SENTHIL NATHAN. G VS. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., AND OTHERS] BVJ & BMSPJ:
Next >