SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY S v. SRI. GOVINDARAJU

Heard Sri.Suresh.M.Latur who appears through video conference represents appellant. No representation on respondents’ side on call.

2. This appeal is preferred by the claimant in MVC No.6902/2018 which stood pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru and was disposed of through order dated 26.11.2020.

3. Sri.Suresh.M.Lathur arguing the matter contends that the appellant sustained 3 grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. As against the claim for Rs.10,00,000/- in total, the Tribunal awarded a meager sum of Rs.1,18,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel states that though Pw.2 who assessed the disability gave - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 evidence to the effect that the disability in respect of whole body is 8%, the Tribunal failed to adopt proper procedure for calculating the compensation which the appellant is entitled towards loss of future earnings and awarded a global sum of Rs.50,000/- which unjustifiable. Learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards medical expenses. Learned counsel further states compensation granted under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.

4. The impugned order discloses that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- as compensation divided under following heads: Sl. No 1 2 3 Description Amount Attendant charges, extra nutritious conveyance charges Rs.10,000 Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000 Loss of income during Rs.18,000 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 laid up period 4 5 Towards disability Rs.50,000 Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.20,000 Total Rs.1,18,000

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained compound interphalyngeal joint dislocation of right great toe, cut lacerated wound at medial aspect of right great toe and degloving injury of right heel pad which are all grievous in nature. Though the appellant contended that he was working at 'Nexus Showroom' by the date of accident and was earning Rs.14,990/- p.m., he failed to establish either his occupation or his earnings by the date of accident. In this regard the submission that is made by Sri.Suresh.M.Lathur is that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant period, for settlement of claims, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- p.m. and at least the said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. The submission thus made appears justifiable. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/- p.m. by the date of accident. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the disability in respect of whole body is 8%. Thus being the case, the Tribunal ought to have awarded justifiable sum as compensation towards loss of future earnings. However, it did not do so. The age of the appellant admittedly was 27 years by the date of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 is ‘17’.

6. Thus the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head 'loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability' is as under: Notional monthly income Rs.12,500/- Annual income Rs.1,50,000/- On multiplier 17 applying appropriate Rs.25,50,000/- - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 Permanent physical disability in respect of whole body being 8%, loss of future earnings is Rs.2,04,000/-

7. Though the appellant produced Ex.P9-medical bills, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, he failed to prove the genuineness of those bills. However, having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court considers desirable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head medical expenditure. Also this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 2 months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500X2). Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the disability, this Court finally holds that the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads: Sl. No 1 2 Description Amount Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.40,000 Loss of future earnings Rs.2,04,000 - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.25,000 food, Towards nourishment, and attendant charges conveyance Medical expenditure Loss of amenities Rs.15,000 Rs.20,000 Rs.20,000 3 4 5 6 Total Rs.3,24,000

8. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- only as compensation. However, in the light of the forgoing discussion, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.6902/2018

26.11.2020 enhanced Rs.1,18,000/- Rs.3,24,000/-. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45917 MFA No. 189 of 2021 (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58