Partly allowed

Karadappa S/O Basanna v. Basavaraj S/O Manik Anr.

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2013MFA/31311/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court reviewed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.60,000. The Court held the award inadequate, increased the claimant's injury percentage to 10%, and enhanced compensation for future income, pain, and suffering, directing the respondent Corporation to deposit the balance of Rs.57,600 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part and the second respondent directed to deposit Rs.57,600 with 6% per annum interest within eight weeks.

Karadappa S/O Basanna Vs Basavaraj S/O Manik Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.31311/2012 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Karadappa S/o Basanna, Aged about 49 years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o Mallapur Village, Sindhanur Tq., Raichur Dist. 584 123. …. Appellant.

¶9

(By Sri B.R. Math, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

1 Basavaraj S/o Manik, Driver of KSRTC Bus No. KA.09/F-2852, Sindhanur, KSRTC Depot, Sindhanur 584 123.

¶12

2 Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Raichur Division, Mantralaya Road, Raichur 584 101.

¶13

…. Respondents.

¶14

(By Sri Veeresh B. Patil, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶15

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 23.7.2011 in MVC No.32/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lingasugur, etc.

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.32/2008 dated 23.7.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lingasugur, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards injury sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.4.2007.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has sustained 15% injury to a particular limb as also to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken 7½% injury to the whole body for the purpose of computation of loss of future income. The claimant in his claim petition has stated that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from agriculture. In the evidence, he has stated that he is having income of Rs.50,000/- per crop. The claimant is raising two paddy crop in his

¶21

¶22

land every year. Thus, he is earning the income of Rs.1 lakh per year. The Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.3,000/- per month without any basis. It is argued that having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by him, the compensation awarded on all other heads is inadequate.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Corporation has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶24

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned

¶25

Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and

¶27

the liability of the second respondent-Corporation to pay compensation. The only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate?

¶28

¶29

The accident had occurred on 11.4.2007. The claimant was

¶30

aged 45 years at the time of the accident. It is clear from the materials on record that he is an agriculturist. He is raising crops in his land. No doubt in the claim petition he has stated that he is having income of Rs.30,000/- per month. In the evidence, he has deposed that he is having the income of Rs.50,000/- per crop. It is clear from the RTC produced by the claimant that he is raising paddy crop. Two crops are raised every year. However, no materials have been produced to show that he was receiving the said income.

¶31

The Doctor has not clarified in his evidence as to whether the claimant has sustained 10 to 15% injury to the whole body or to a particular limb. Having regard to the wound certificate and other evidence on record, it is just and proper to hold that he has 10% permanent disability to the whole body. Since he is aged 45 years, the multiplier applicable is 14, I am also of the view that his income for the purpose of computation of loss of future income has to be assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month. Taking his income at Rs.4,500/per month with the application of multiplier 14 and 10% disability to

¶32

¶33

the whole body, the compensation payable towards loss of future earning is Rs.75,600/-. In my opinion, the award of compensation under other heads is also on a lower side, except Rs.3,000/- awarded towards medical expenses based on the medical bills and Rs.5,000/towards conveyance, food and nourishment. Thus, I award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

¶34

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Towardsloss of futureincome	Rs.75,600.00
2	Towardspain and sufferings	Rs. 15,000.00
3	Towardsloss ofamenities	Rs.10,000.00
4	Towards loss of income during the laid up period	Rs. 9,000.00
5	Towards conveyance,food andnourishment	Rs. 5,000.00
6	Towardsmedicalexpenses	Rs. 3,000.00
	*TOTAL*	*Rs.1,17,600.00*

¶35

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- which has

¶36

to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.57,600/-. The said sum of Rs.57,600/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶37

¶38

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly

¶39

allowed in part. The second respondent – Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.57,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No costs.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE.

¶41

BMM/-

Karadappa S/O Basanna v. Basavaraj S/O Manik Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karadappa S/O Basanna v. Basavaraj S/O Manik Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bankimroy S/O Upanroy Vs Shivayogi Swami

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam Vs Nijamuddin S/O Mainuddin Shaikh and Anr.

Abdul Raheem S/O Mohammed Osman Anr. Vs Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Anr.

Smt. Mangalamma W/O Late Vijayakumar Vs Rangayya Swamy Alias Gangayya S/O Virupakshayya

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari Vs Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Mahamood S/O Chandsab Shaikh Vs Malleshappa S/O Shivaraya Walikar and Anr.