Partly allowed

Pundalik S/O.Noorandar Lamani v. Anand S/O. Venkappa Lamani

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2017MFA/23983/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Appeals Bench addressed an appeal against a Tribunal award denying full compensation. The Court found an arithmetical error in calculating future income loss based on a lower income figure and enhanced the total compensation to ₹4,25,200/-.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from ₹2,14,600/- to ₹4,25,200/-.

Pundalik S/O.Noorandar Lamani Vs Anand S/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

MFA No.23983/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI.PUNDALIK S/O NOORANDAR LAMANI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE, (NOW NIL), R/O HOOLIKERITANDA, SAUNDATTI – 591126, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI.ANAND S/O VENKAPPA LAMANI,

¶14

AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN), OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HOOLIKERITANDA,

¶15

TQ.SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST; BELGAUM.

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER,

¶17

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

¶18

MERCHANT’S BANK BUILDING, SR CIRCLE BAILHONGAL,

¶19

TQ.BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

¶23

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.1206/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This matter is listed for admission. However, after

¶29

hearing sometime, at the consent of both sides, this matter is taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, heard both side in full.

¶30

The appellant herein was the claimant before the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal below’ for short), who had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the respondents with respect to a Road Traffic Accident said to have been occurred on 29.03.2011, wherein the claimant is said to have sustained injuries. The Tribunal below by its judgment and award allowed the said petition in part awarding compensation of a sum of `2,14,600/- together with interest.

¶31

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

The appellant/claimant in his appeal has

¶34

contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is on the meager side. His main contention is that the income taken by the Tribunal below at 4,500/- p.m. is a very small amount when compared to his pleading and evidence that he was earning a sum of 2,00,000/- per annum. Reiterating the same contention, the learned counsel for the appellant further drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, with the figure of income arrived at by the Tribunal below, it has erred in calculating the quantum of compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent-

¶36

Insurance Company in his argument submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below as it exists is on the on the higher side and it does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶37

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

enhancement, as submitted by both sides that no other appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award, the finding given by the Tribunal below regarding occurrence of the accident on the date, time, place and in the manner as agitated by the claimant has reached its finality. As such, the said aspect need not be re-analyzed again. The only question that remains for consideration is with respect to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.

¶40

The Tribunal below has awarded the

¶41

compensation under the following heads and the sums shown against them.

¶42

Amount( ` )

¶43

Pain and suffering	50,000/-
MedicalandHospitalcharges	14,000/-
Nourishment charges	5,000/-
Attendant and conveyance	5,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period	27,000/-
Loss of futureincome	48,600/-

¶44

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

Loss of amenities,future unhappiness	40,000/-
Futuremedicalexpenses	25,000/-
TOTAL	2,14,600/-

¶47

A perusal of the copies of the exhibits produced

¶48

by the learned counsel during the course of his argument

¶49

shows that the wound certificate at Ex.P4, disability certificate at Ex.P9 and inpatient record at Ex.P8 shows that the claimant had sustained fracture of cuboid of right ankle in the accident and that his right little finger was also amputated. He took treatment as an inpatient in the hospital from 29.03.2011 to 03.04.2011. The doctor who was examined as P.W.2 has opined that the injured has suffered permanent partial physical disability at 25% to the right upper limb and 10% to the right lower limb. The Tribunal below after analyzing the evidence has calculated the percentage of permanent partial disability at 20% compared to the whole body and took the income of the claimant at 4,500/p.m. and awarded the compensation of a sum of 48,600/- towards ‘loss of

¶50

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶51

: 6 :

¶52

future income’. However, while arriving at such

¶53

conclusion and in calculating 20% of the ‘loss of future income’, there was an arithmetical error which has lead to arrive at a figure of `48,600/-.

¶54

The claimant both in the claim petition as well as in his evidence has stated that, at the time of the accident he was doing agricultural work and was earning a sum of 2,00,000/- p.a. which was intended to extend up to 3,00,000/- p.a., however, due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he could not do any of his agricultural work. No doubt he has not produced any document or any proof to show his alleged income at such quantum, considering this, the Tribunal below took his income at 4,500/- p.m. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that in similar matters, Coordinate Benches of this Court for the relevant period of accident, which in the instant case is 2011,taking the notional income of an agriculturist at 6,000/- p.m. As such, when the said income is

¶55

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶56

: 7 :

¶57

taken as the income of the claimant, the quantum of compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’ comes to 2,59,200/- (6,000/- x 12 x 18 x 20/100). However, the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of 48,600/under the said head. As such, the claimant/appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of a sum of 2,10,600/- under the said head.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries suffered by

¶59

the claimant and length of his hospitalization period, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded under all other heads by the Tribunal below are reasonable quantum, as such, they do not warrant any modification by this Court. Thus, retaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below under all other heads as above and also retaining the interest and its rate as awarded by the Tribunal below, the only quantum

¶60

of compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’

¶61

M.F.A.No.23983/2013

¶62

: 8 :

¶63

is to be modified by way of an enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

The judgment and award dated 18.09.2012 passed

¶67

by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal in MVC No.1206/2011 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below at 2,14,600/- is enhanced and fixed at 4,25,200/-.

¶68

The rest of the terms of the judgment and award with respect to the liability of the respondents before the Tribunal below to pay compensation, awarding interest and its rate and terms regarding release/fixed deposit of the awarded amount shall remain unaltered.

¶69

Draw the modified award accordingly.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

MBS/-

Pundalik S/O.Noorandar Lamani v. Anand S/O. Venkappa Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pundalik S/O.Noorandar Lamani v. Anand S/O. Venkappa Lamani

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

Prabhudev S/O. Sanna Basappa Bisanalli Vs Virupaxappa S/O. Huchappa Hulagi

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Prameela, W/O. Santosh Netrekar

Sri.Yallappa Shivappa Sajali, Vs Sri.Ashok Ballappa Naik

Reliance General Insurance Company Cover Vs Parashuram Siddappa Malagi

Devadas Vasu Gunagi Vs the Divisional Controller

Kumar Aditya S/O Kallappa Palekar Vs Ravi S/O Jagannath Upari