Partly allowed

Basawaraj S/O Manappa Dori @ Haldal v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2014MFA/200834/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a miscellaneous first appeal regarding compensation for a motor vehicle accident. The court partially allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs. 52,100/- considering factors like disability, income, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 52,100/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Basawaraj S/O Manappa Dori @ Haldal Vs the Managing… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200834/2014 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

BASAWARAJ S/O MANAPPA DORI @ HALDAL, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MADDARKI, TQ. SHORAPUR, NOW R/O HEERAPUR, BEHIND MSK MILL, GULBARGA – 585 102.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SANJEEV PATI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA, THROUG ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP. KBN COMPLEX, STATION MAIN ROAD, GULBARGA – 585 101.

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI A.M. PATIL, ADV.)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.525/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Though the matter is listed today for admission,

¶21

with the consent of the learned counsel for both the

¶22

parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of

¶24

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the

¶25

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶26

The facts reveal that on 27.08.2011 when the

¶27

appellant was proceeding in the bus bearing No.KA.32/F-1310, it hit another bus bearing

¶28

No.KA.32/F-1382 and in the accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries. He was treated in the

¶29

¶30

hospital. He suffered disability. Therefore, he made a claim for compensation before the Tribunal for pain, suffering, mental agony, medical expenses etc.

¶31

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2,00,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said

¶32

sum, the injured claimant has filed this appeal.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶34

The point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

¶35

Whether the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation, if so to what extent?

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶37

the assessment of income is on the lower side and compensation on all the heads needs enhancement. On

¶38

¶39

the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and award and submits that the amount granted under the impugned award is just and reasonable.

¶40

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the appellant was an agriculturist and he suffered disability to an extent of 40% in the right lower limb, as he had sustained the fracture of right patella. The Tribunal has accepted the disability at 20% to the whole body. Though the doctor states that the disability is 40% in the lower limb, acceptance of disability at 20% to the whole body appears to be on the higher side. Generally, 1/3 is taken as the disability for the whole body. Hence, it would be just and proper to assess the disability at 15%.

¶41

The Tribunal has considered his income at Rs.4,000/- per month. The accident is of the year

¶42

¶43

2011 and generally a sum of Rs.5,500/- is considered as income of a laborer in the Lok Adalaths with the

¶44

consent of the parties. Therefore, it is just and proper to consider his income at Rs.5,500/- per month. The multiplier applicable would be 18 and not 16 as considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the net compensation payable towards loss of future earning would be Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 18 x 15/ 100 = Rs.1,78,200/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.1,53,600/awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.24,600/- on this head.

¶45

Only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of fracture suffered and the pain, I think an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is payable on this head.

¶46

A sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded as compensation towards medical expenses on the basis

¶47

¶48

of the medical bills produced and I do not think, it needs any enhancement.

¶49

Just and reasonable compensation has been awarded towards attendant, nourishment and

¶50

conveyance charges.

¶51

Towards loss of earning during treatment period, only a sum of Rs.4,000/- has been awarded. Taking into consideration the period of healing of the fracture, which is approximately three months, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. Deducting a sum of Rs.4,000/awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.12,500/- on this head.

¶52

Towards loss of amenities, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- on this head.

¶53

¶54

Thereby, the appellant is entitled to the

¶55

enhanced compensation as under:

¶56

Towards loss of future earning Rs.24,600/2. Towards pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-

¶57

Towards loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs.12,500/-

¶58

Towards loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.52,100/ -

¶59

Accordingly, the point raised is answered in

¶60

affirmative.

¶61

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The

¶62

appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.52,100/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Basawaraj S/O Manappa Dori @ Haldal v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basawaraj S/O Manappa Dori @ Haldal v. the Managing Director

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

Sri Divindrappa @ Devappa Herura and Ors. Vs Sri Suresh S/O Veerabhadrappa Madagi and Anr.

Durgappa S/O Hanmanth Vs Baswaraj S/O Sidramappa Angadi Anr.

Late Shankar Naik and Ors. Vs B Nabisab S/O Madar Saheb and Anr.

Veeranna S/O Maharudrappa Biradar Vs the Deputy Manager and Controller

North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Sangeetha W/O.Sangayya Hiremath

Smt. Sharanamma S/O Sayappa Agasar Ors. Vs Chennayya Swami S/O Shantayya Swami Ors.