IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO. 5013 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER AJAY KUMAR SINHA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.VENKATESH BABU S/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.57/1 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD NANJAPPA BLOCK K.G. NAGAR BENGALURU -506 019 2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR V MAJOR IN AGE S/O VENKATASWAMY NAIDU RESIDING AT 101/11 22ND MAIN JANARDHANA LAYOUT PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU -506 070. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D.S , ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3015/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.21,67,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RUPEES 50,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.3015/2016 dated 06.04.2017 by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH 7).
2. The grounds taken in the appeal are that the income assessed at Rs.10,000/- is on higher side and secondly Tribunal added 50% of the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- towards future prospects, which is impermissible since it is a injury case. Third ground is in respect of the interest at 9% which according to the claimant is contrary to Section 34 of the CPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the discussions made by the MACT that the injured has suffered 80% disability and if it is computed 1/3rd it comes to 27%. Hence consideration of the case of the claimant for awarding compensation, it is an error of fact and laws. Secondly, as per the judgment of the National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 50% towards future prospects to be added in case of death or in case of 100% disability. Herein in this case the disability itself is 80% and whole body is assessed at 27%. Under these circumstances adding 50% to the income is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra.
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1347 (Jagdish vs. Mohan and others) and submitted that in the similar case 50% has been added and hence the same has to be maintained in this case also. On the same ground he has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and another reported in 2014 ACJ 653.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The case of the claimant is that he was working as an electrician and he was earning about Rs.20,000/- p.m. Since his income has not been substantiated, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.10,000/- p.m. When a person claims that he is a skilled worker, working as an electrician the burden is on him to produce some documents, if not the fullest, the available documents and if he is working for someone then employment certificate or the salary certificate, if he owns anything, passport etc., could have been produced. But in the instant case no such documents are produced. However considering the place of residence and he being a skilled worker we hold that the income assessed at Rs.10,000/- is sound and proper.
6. Next question is, whether the claimant is entitled for future prospects. In this regard the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it is held that the future prospects is to be added in case if the claimants or the deceased is having an assured income or if the deceased was having a self employment and the judgment is not in respect of the injury cases. But there are instances where the future prospects is awarded in case if it is established on the basis of the material and evidence that the injured suffered 100% disability, then they are entitled for future prospects. But in the case on hand it is altogether different. He is an electrician, suffered amputation below knee and evidence of the doctor is that he has suffered 80% disability to the lower limb, which is to be assessed at 1/3rd. If this is considered it would come to 27%, but the Tribunal has taken 80% and whole body disability at 55%. We are not inclined to interfere in the said aspect.
7. The only ground made for interference is in respect of awarding compensation towards future prospects. As we have discussed earlier that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it is held that future prospects is to be awarded in case of death and static income and also in respect of age. Since the claimant is the injured himself and the percentage of disability is less than 100%, under this circumstances we are declined to extend the benefit of future prospects to the claimant. The income taken at Rs.10,000/- is retained. But adding 50% to it is to be removed. Hence the calculation would be Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 17 x 55% = Rs.11,22,000/-. Same is awarded in respect of loss of future income and compensation awarded under other heads are retained. This Rs.5,61,000/- stands deducted from out of the amount assessed by the claims Tribunal under loss of future income.
8. The amount under deposit to be transmitted to the MACT.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ykl