IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.7007/2016 (MV) BETWEEN V V LINGARAJU S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O VADERAHALLI VILLAGE JAVAGAL HOBALI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY R/AT:
C/O RUDREGOWDA VATARA 6TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM HASSAN – 573 201.
(By Sri GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., No.782, BALAJI ENCLAVE 16TH MAIN ROAD, BBM LAYOUT IIND STAGE, BENGALURU.
REPT. BY THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KRUTHIKA ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR N R CIRCLE, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD HASSAN – 573 201.
2. VINAY B S S/O SIDDESH B B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT:No.43, BANAVARA HULIYAR ROAD ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
(By Sri ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR -1, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.103/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, HASSAN, 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:
JUDGMENT With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondent, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 17.06.2016 passed in MVC No.103/2015 by the III Additional District Judge and MACT, Hassan, wherein compensation of `3,78,180/- was granted together with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of realization.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlappings, parties are referred to in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.
4. The facts which led to filing of claim petition are:
“On 09.10.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. on Arasikere- Haranahalli road, petitioner was traveling in a motorbike bearing No.KA-04-ES-1050 along with Ananda from Arasikere to Vaderahalli and when they reached near Geejihalli village, the driver of the car bearing No.KA-13-N- 5337 drove the same from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. In the result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He claims that he was getting `30,000/- per month by doing agriculture and business as well and he claimed compensation of `35 lacs for the injuries suffered by him.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that accident is not disputed, injuries are not disputed and disability arrived at. Now the disagreement is only in respect of quantum of compensation, the petitioner has claimed his monthly income at `30,000/- and said to be agriculturist managing family of three members. Now expecting high income depending on agriculture may not synchronize. Petitioner also claims that he was doing business. In the context and circumstances, it would be just and proper if his monthly income is considered at `7,000/- in which it would reflect not only loss of future income and period for which he was out of work considering the total disability at 13%.
6. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the amount of compensation granted has been liberal and appellant is not entitled for enhancement.
7. Thus, the present pattern of the heads under which the compensation is granted does not appear to be completely unreasonable except considering the monthly income at `6,500/- per month. Considering the cost of living, difficulties and the income claimed from agriculture and business and also taking note of submission of the learned counsel for appellant regarding three members in the family of appellant, and in which event loss of income due to disability in the form of loss of prospective income would be:
Loss of future income `7,000x12x13/100x17= `1,85,640.00 Less: granted by tribunal `1,72,380.00 `13,260.00 Loss of income for laid up period ` 1,000.00 (7,000-6,500 =500x2) Enhanced compensation ` 14,260.00 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is not entitled for compensation on amenities, loss of future income as same has been sufficiently considered. In the circumstances it may not be just and proper to grant compensation on loss of amenities.
In the light of just compensation granted, it is not just and proper to meddle with compensation granted on other heads.
Hence, the following:
ORDER 1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Impugned Judgment and award passed by Tribunal in MVC No.103/2015 dated 17.06.2016 is proportionately set aside to modify the award and an additional compensation of `14,260/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization.
3. Respondent shall deposit the amount of enhanced compensation with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN