The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5106 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJANNA V, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.107 WARD NO.13, WATER TANK ROAD, BIRUR, BIRUR (RURAL) KADUR, CHIKMAGALURU -577 166. AND ALSO AT: NO.14/A, 26TH AMIN 28TH CROSS, 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 069. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., …APPELLANT REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB, KRISHI BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.
Legal Reasoning
2. MR. AHMED SHARIF S/O MOHAMED KARIM SAB MAJOR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 (AGE OF R-2 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) BEHIND URDU SCHOOL K.M. ROAD, KADUR, CHIKKMAGLURU DISTRICT PIN-577 548. (BY SRI. BENNI RAVISH CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R- 1, VIDE ORDER DATED 16/04/2024, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2594/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-23, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.2594/2019 on the file of the XXI Additional Senior Civil Judge, ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground of inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 2. It is the case of the appellant - claimant that on 28.02.2019, when the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-14-R-0417, at that time, the driver of Indica car bearing Registration No.KA-18-M-8806 came at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Due to which he fell down and sustained injuries to his left leg and other parts of the body. Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and the financial expenditure incurred, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent-Insurance Company and owner of the offending car. 3. On appearance of the respondents, they filed statement of objections resisting their claim petition denying the claim of the claimant. On the basis of materials placed on record by the claimant, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 directed respondent No.1 to pay the compensation within a period of one month from the date of the award. 4. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation by ignoring the evidence adduced by Doctor-PW2, whereas he has opined the disability to an extent of 19% to the whole body so also the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side without taking into consideration the notional income chart prepared by Legal Services Authorities. It is also contended on other heads also the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing Insurance Company vehemently contends that there is no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 illegality or arbitrariness in passing the award. The Tribunal has passed just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant, all aspects have been considered while passing the impugned award and hence there is no requirement of any interference by this Court regarding the enhancement. On these grounds, he seeks rejection of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the impugned judgment and award and the records. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained due to the road traffic accident have been proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P11. Negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability is rightly fixed against the Insurance Company. 8. Coming to the question of age, avocation, income for enchancement of compensation, the income of claimant taken at Rs.10,000/- is on the lower side. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 legal Services Authorities has prescribed Rs.14,000/- as income, where there is no proof of income for the accident during the period 2019. Hence, income is taken as Rs.14,000/- per month. The doctor has been examined as PW-2, who has opined disability to left lower limb at 19% to the whole body. The Tribunal not being satisfied by the opinion expressed by the doctor has assessed the disability to be at 9% as there is no proper clarification provided by the Doctor-PW-2 and functional disability is arrived at 9%, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the opinion of the tribunal. The Tribunal is right as the doctor has failed to give clarity and provide proper explanation with regard to disability of particular limb so also disability to the whole body. The appropriate multiplier that is to be taken is '9', which is correctly taken and the same does not call for interference. In view of the above, the loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability would be Rs.1,36,080/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 9 x 9%) as against Rs.1,00,000/-. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 9. Towards attendant charges, pain and sufferings, future medical expenses, I do not find any interference and the same is retained. 10. Towards loss of income during laid up period requires marginal enhancement as this court has increased the income to Rs.14,000/-. The claimant would require at- least four months period to recover and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 4) under this head as against Rs.40,000/-. 11. Towards loss of future amenities, Rs.50,000/- is awarded as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,22,080/- as against Rs.2,50,000/- as mentioned in the table below: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 Sl. No. Head of compensation 1 Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance charges 2 Pain and suffering 3 Loss of income during laid-up period Amount of compensation awarded 15,000-00 40,000-00 56,000-00 4 Loss of future income due to 1,36,080-00 disability 5 Loss of future amenities and 50,000-00 happiness 6 Future Medical expenses TOTAL 25,000-00 3,22,080-00 i) ii) 13. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Court of XXI Additional Judge of Small Causes Court and ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.2594/2019, is modified. iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,22,080/- as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2368 MFA No. 5106 of 2022 against Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum (excluding future medical expenses). iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent - insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the Tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/and on proper identification. vi) Registry to send back trial Court records. vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9