Appeal against MACT judgment held partially allowed. Award modified by enhancing future earnings loss to 60 months, attendant/nursing charges, and loss of amenities from original total of Rs. 2.86 lakhs to Rs. 4.30 lakhs.
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.
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22774 OF 2012 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANKIT R DESAI, ADV., FOR SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH HIREMATH Location:Dharwad Date: 2022.08.20 11:04:29 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G N RAICHUR FOR R3.,ADVOCATE;
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:22-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1226/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-IX, BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the accident has occurred on 22/6/2011. Due to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, he was admitted as an in-patient for a period of 64 days. PW.3-Doctor has assessed disability at 30%, in terms of Ex.P.10 by considering fracture of lower 1/3rd of right fibula, degloving injury to let knee and leg suffered by the claimant, however, the Tribunal has taken disability at 20% against 30% of the disability assessed by the doctor. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in taking the disability at 20% as there was fracture of fibula and the same is also united and also found shortening of 3.5 cm of right leg. However, the Tribunal committed error in taking the income at Rs.4,500/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2011 and the income ought to have
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
been taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Since the age of the claimant is 25 years, the multiplier of 18 is adopted. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.6,000X12X18X20%) towards loss of future earnings.
pain and suffering and the same is just and reasonable. Medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- is awarded based on the bills produced. I do not find any reason to enhance the same.
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
Rs.13,500/- towards loss of earning during the treatment period. When the appellant was in the hospital for a period of 64 days i.e., for more than two months, it is appropriate award loss of income for a period of six months which comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000X6).
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part,
MFA No. 22774 of 2012
iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(Sd/-) JUDGE
VB-paragraphs 1 to 6,
JM-from paragraph 7 till end
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was correct in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal?
What order should be passed on the enhancement of compensation and attendant charges?
Nag Raj @ Nagan
Samiullah S/o Majid Sab
G. Honnur Khan S/o Late Gaffur Khan
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
