SRI. SHANMUGAM K. N v. SRI. S. RAGHAVENDRA

(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. SHIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O. DATED 11.09.2022, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.215/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Suresh M.latur, learned counsel appellant who appears through video conference. Also heard Sri.Thippeswamy, who argued representing Sri.M.S.Shriram, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The claimant is before this Court challenging the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.215/2019 dated 13.11.2020.

3. The appellant seeking compensation Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident moved an application. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,570/- as compensation. Raising a contention that the said amount is - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 highly disproportionate to the injuries sustained and the treatment taken, the present appeal is filed.

4. Arguing the matter Sri. Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel for appellant contends that the appellant sustained a grievous injury apart from other injuries in a road traffic accident. He took extensive treatment and during the course of treatment underwent a surgery also. The appellant requires one more surgery for removal of implants. The appellant as a mechanic was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, without considering the occupation and earnings of the appellant by the date of accident, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month and proceeded with awarding Rs.90,000/- under the head loss of future earnings which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also submits that the compensation granted under all other heads is also disproportionate. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned counsel during the course of his submission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in 2014 ACJ 627 in the case between Syed Sadiq and - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., with regard to assessment of compensation where the injured sustained fracture of both bones of lower limb. Learned counsel on the aspect of award of interest relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Sangeetha and Others Vs. Krishan Kumar and Others reported in 2019 ACJ 558 and in the case between S.Thangaraj Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2018 ACJ 1009.

6. The submission that is made by Sri.Thippeswamy, who represents respondent No.2 on the other hand is that the Tribunal taking into consideration the totality of the evidence produced awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore, the award requires no interference.

7. By all the evidence brought on record, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg i.e. tibia and fibula apart from two other simple injuries. Also it is brought on record that appellant underwent surgery i.e. closed reduction and internal fixation in respect of the fracture sustained to both bones of right leg. The - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,570/- as compensation divided under following heads: Heads of compensation Sl. No 1 2 Medical bills 3 Pain and suffering Loss of income during laid up period Loss of future earning due to disability amenities, Loss conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges Future medical expenses Total 4 5 6 Amount in Rs. 50,000-00 6,570-00 20,000-00 90,000-00 40,000-00 15,000-00 2,21,570-00

8. The appellant though contended that as Mechanic he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, failed to produce any proof to that effect. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 68 years by the date of accident. Thus, in the absence of any proof with regard to the actual earnings as on the date of accident, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.12,500/- per month, which figure is considered even by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the relevant period for assessing compensation. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021

9. The Tribunal assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 15%. The Tribunal discussed extensively with regard to the evidence brought on record in respect of the disability and considered that whole body disability is required to be taken as 15%. The finding given by the Tribunal in that regard needs no interference. Also considering the age of the appellant as 68 years by the date of accident, the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier '5' which needs no interference. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings is as under: Description Notional monthly income Annual income (12,500x12) Apply appropriate multiplier'5'(1,50,000x5) Loss of permanent disability whole body being 15% future earnings, physical respect of Amount in Rs. 12,500-00 1,50,000-00 7,50,000-00 1,12,500-00

10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for appellant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- only under the head loss of income during laid up period. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 pursuits atleast for a period of three months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500/- x 3).

11. On going through the entire material that is brought on record including the impugned order and upon hearing both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under different heads is as under: Sl. No 1 Description Compensation for pain and suffering 2 Medical expenses 3 Loss of income during laid up period Loss of future earnings Towards nourishment, and attendant charges Loss of amenities in life Future medical expenses conveyance food, Total 4 5 6 7 Amount Rs. 50,000-00 6,570-00 37,500-00 1,12,500-00 20,000-00 40,000-00 20,000-00 2,86,570-00

12. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43382 MFA No. 152 of 2021 MVC No.215/2019 dated 13.11.2020 is enhanced from Rs.2,21,570/- to Rs.2,86,570/-. iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 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 AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53