Partly allowed

Raja @ Raju, S/O. Mallappa Jagandabhavi, v. Vasudevan, S/O: Gnanasampantham

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2020MFA/100776/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, seeking enhancement of compensation after suffering an amputation. The High Court increased the income assessment and disability percentage, calculating an additional loss of earnings and awarding future medical expenses, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award was modified to grant the appellant Rs. 11,52,800 as enhanced compensation for loss of earnings, plus Rs. 50,000 for future medical expenses; the insurance company was directed to

Raja @ Raju, S/O. Mallappa Jagandabhavi, Vs Vasudevan, S/O… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS HE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶9

M.F.A.No.100776/2017 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RAJA @ RAJU S/OMALLAPPA JAGANDABHAVI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS DRIVER I SRINIVASA CONSTRUCTIONS, BALLARI, R/O.: CHAVVANA BHAVI, MUDDEBIHAL TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT, NOW R/O. VAKRANI CAMP, NEAR SRINIVAS CONSTRUCTION, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BALLARI-583 103.

¶12

… APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. Y. MALATHIREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

VASUDEVAN S/O.GNANASAMPANTHAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.TN-42/U-1689, R/O. NO.5/18 A ULAUDAIYAR PALYAM, NATHAKADAIYUR POST, KANGAYAM TALUK, THIRPUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-601728.

¶16

G.VENGADACHALAPATHI S/O.GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.TN-42/U-1689, R/O. 59, DHARAPURAM MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.8, KANGAYAM TALUK, THIRUPUR DISTRCIT, TAMIL NADU-601728.

¶17

¶18

THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI – 583 103.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

9BY SHRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.1211/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents.

¶25

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for disposal.

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1211/2014 by the Member, MACT-II, Ballari, (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶27

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.10.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner was walking near Vakrani Camp on Ballari – Siruguppa Road. At that time, a Lorry bearing No.TN-42-U-1689 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner because of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and his right leg got amputated. Consequently, petitioner preferred MVC No.1211/2014.

¶30

Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending lorry and respondent No.3 is the insurance company with whom the offending lorry was duly insured.

¶31

Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.P.1 to P.13 were marked. There were no witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. Based on the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused

¶32

¶33

due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.6,81,825/- with 6% interest per annum. Not satisfied by the said award, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶34

It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a Driver of LMV goods vehicle and was aged about 31 years at the time of the accident. He has lost his one leg and that he cannot do the job of a Driver anymore. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in taking his monthly income as well as the disability on the lower side. On the said ground, the petitioner has sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is justified and sought for the dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

The accident is of the year 2014. The notional income as per Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2014 is Rs.7,500/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner at

¶37

¶38

Rs.5,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner as a Driver of LMV Goods Vehicle, the income taken by the Tribunal is definitely on the lower side. Taking into consideration the job of the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to hold his income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident is admittedly 31 years. As per the disability certificate at Ex.P.8 issued by PW-2 – the Doctor, who treated the petitioner declares 80% disability. However, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 50%.

¶39

We have perused the papers. It is seen that petitioner has suffered comminuted open fracture over right leg, comminuted fracture of middle 1/3^rd of right tibia, fracture of middle 1/3^rd of fibula and also the fracture of right calcanium and amputation was done above knee on right leg. The disability certificate at Ex.P.8 states that the petitioner has suffered disability to an extent of 80%. Looking into the nature of injuries, age and occupation of the appellant herein, we are of the opinion that the assessment of the Tribunal to the total

¶40

¶41

disability of 50% to the whole body is on the lower side. We are inclined to increase the same to 75%. Considering the age of the petitioner as 31 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier is taken at “16”. In our opinion, the disability would affect his future prospects as petitioner has sustained amputation of right leg. Hence, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, on account of loss of earnings, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,12,800/- (8,000 x 12 x 16 x 40% x 75/100 = 16,12,800) as against Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, we find that no compensation is awarded towards future medical expenses. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards the same. On other heads, the compensation awarded is appropriate. Thus, in all petitioner shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,52,800/- over and above what is granted by the Tribunal. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶42

¶43

For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶44

The respondent No.3 is directed to satisfy the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Office to draw decree accordingly.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MH/-

Raja @ Raju, S/O. Mallappa Jagandabhavi, v. Vasudevan, S/O: Gnanasampantham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja @ Raju, S/O. Mallappa Jagandabhavi, v. Vasudevan, S/O: Gnanasampantham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mandoli.S.Manohar S/O. Shankrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun @ Malleshi Vs Shivashantkumar

Mr Bhima @ Bhimashi @ Bhimappa Vs Mr Subhashchandra Krishnlal Zavar

The Divisional Manager Vs Duruganna @ Y Duruganna

The Divsional Controller Vs Mahadevi Veerabhadra Sangati

Smt.Mahadevi W/O Veerabhadra Sangati Vs the Divisional Controller