Appeal against Motor Vehicles Tribunal award on quantum of compensation. Court enhanced compensation for loss of future earnings and other heads while rejecting double payment in amenities. Allowed appeal in part.
Compensation of Rs. 30,000 with interest at 9% p.a. allowed in addition to existing award; appeal allowed in part.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
MFA No.50/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.50/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MANNOJI RAO, R/AT BALATHURU COLONY, BANGALOERE - 560067.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.R.SATHYAPAL, ADV. FOR SRI GURUDEV PRASAD.K.T., ADV.) AND:
2
MFA No.50/2014
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4216/2012 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation granted to the injuries sustained in an accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.
driving and involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute. The appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation.
that compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is not granted though there is disability to an extent of 17%. He also submits that the compensation
awarded on the other heads is also meager. Anyhow, learned counsel for the insurer supports the judgment and award.
3
MFA No.50/2014
reveals that the appellant has suffered the fracture of both the bones and laceration wound over the right hand. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 17% to the whole body. But anyhow, on the ground that he is a Store Keeper and his salary is not increased, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’.
said to be at Rs.8,000/- per month. Despite his service more than a year, there is no increase in his salary. The Government Servant gets increment every year and the fact that the salary was not increased may be due to the disability that has been suffered by him. In this context, even considering the increment at Rs.1,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ depending upon the age of the appellant and the disability at 17%, he would be entitled to Rs.30,000/-, towards ‘loss of future earnings’.
4
MFA No.50/2014
‘loss of amenities’, though he has undergone surgery for removal of implants. He is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as well.
5
MFA No.50/2014
Sd/JUDGE
VM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can enhance the compensation for loss of future earnings, loss of amenities, and other heads awarded by the Tribunal.
Whether there was double payment for loss of amenities and loss of joy and happiness which needs adjustment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Mohan Rao
A.Sraavanan
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.
A.S. Pachhapure
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
