Partly allowed

Manjunath @ Manjegowda v. Yuvaraja v

Karnataka HC25 May 2022MFA/4687/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation based on 15% functional disability impact on the appellant's earning capacity. The court recalculated the loss of earning capacity and loss of income during the laid-up period, ordering an additional payout plus adjusted interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant is awarded total compensation of Rs.4,98,400/- (an additional Rs.2,08,400/- plus interest) against the Tribunal's award of Rs.2,90,000/-.

Manjunath @ Manjegowda Vs Yuvaraja v — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4687/2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH @ MANJEGOWDA, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A BELASINDA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

YUVARAJA V., S/O VENKATESH, R/A BAGURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶13

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.B.R. TOWER, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR NEW MISSEN ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DT:30.11.2017)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.948/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONALJ DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’ for short), by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2017, passed in MVC No.948/2011, on the file of 4^th Additional District And Sessions Judge, Hassan, seeking enhancement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶21

Brief facts:

¶22

On 05.04.2011, at about 2.00 p.m., on Baguru

¶23

Road, near Gooranahalli ditch at Channarayapatna town, a bike bearing registration No.KA-03-HJ-3819, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant

¶24

¶25

while he was walking on the side of the road and as a result of said impact, the appellant sustained injuries and he had taken treatment at General Hospital at Channarayapatna, Mangala Hospital, Hassan as an inpatient. The appellant had incurred medical expenses and incidental expenses of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶26

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. On issue of notice, Respondent No.1, owner of the offending motor bike remained absent and was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the offending motorbike filed the written statement. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent No.2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Earning Capacity due to disability’ suffered by the appellant, as he is not able to do Hotel and Agricultural work as before. Therefore, prays for grant of compensation under the head ‘loss of earning capacity due to disability’.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct and appropriate and there is no ground for enhancement. That the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate and therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶31

¶32

7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶33

under various heads are as follows:

¶34

Pain And Suffering	: Rs.	50,000/-
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	80,000/-
Attendant Charges, diet, nourishment	: Rs.	50,000/-
Conveyance
Loss of income during laid up period	: Rs.	10,000/-
Physical disability, loss of amenities	: Rs.	1,00,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	2,90,000/-

¶35

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation

¶36

under the head ‘loss of income due to disability’. Exhibit–P3 is the Wound Certificate, which shows the appellant had sustained the following injuries:

¶37

“ i. Fracture of L1, Vertebra with Paraphrasis with bowel and bladder involvement,

¶38

ii. Abrasion over both knee,

¶39

iii. Abrasion over both knee”

¶40

The Doctor, PW-2 had stated in his evidence

¶41

that the appellant had suffered disabilities as follows:

¶42

“i. Spine Movements restricted and painful, Not able to bend and lift the weight,

¶43

ii. X-ray shows slightly mal-union of fracture and L1 vertebra.

¶44

¶45

iii. The Petitioner has 50% disability.”

¶46

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of earning capacity due to disability’, which the appellant was entitled. PW-2, Doctor has stated that the appellant had suffered 50% of the disability. Even though PW-2 has clearly stated that the appellant has suffered 50% disability, the same was not considered by the Tribunal. The appellant has suffered considerable functional disability affecting his avocation of Hotel and agricultural work. Therefore, by applying principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, at para Nos.12, 13 and 19, wherein it was held that compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Earning Capacity Due To Disability’ can be considered by considering the ‘Functional Disability’. This Court is of the opinion that the nature of injuries and the avocation of the appellant, and then in what way the disability is affecting the earning capacity is to be considered. This cannot be done by

¶47

¶48

mathematical calculation. This can be done by pragmatic approach considering the practical aspect involved in the case. Considering the injuries suffered, coupled with the avocation of the appellant and the disability as stated by PW-2, Doctor, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has suffered 15% ‘functional disability’.

¶49

The accident has occurred in the year 2011, the appellant has not produced any evidence to show his income. Therefore, as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities , the notional income would be Rs.6,500/- per month for the year 2011. The age of the appellant as on the date of the accident was 28 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Earning Capacity Due to Disability’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶50

Rs.6,500 x 15 / 100 x 17 x 12 = Rs.1,98,900/-

¶51

¶52

Further, considering the nature of injuries

¶53

suffered by the appellant, he might not have been able to work for atleast three months. Therefore, compensation towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ is to be awarded. The same is calculated as follows:

¶54

Rs.6,500 x 3 = Rs.19,500/-

¶55

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are correct and appropriate, and needs no interference.

¶56

Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total

¶57

compensation, under various heads as follows:

¶58

Pain And Suffering	: Rs.	50,000/-	(kept in tact)
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	80,000/-	(kept in tact)
Attendant Charges, diet, nourishment Conveyance	: Rs.	50,000/-	(kept in tact)
Physical disability, loss of amenities	: Rs.	1,00,000/-	(kept in tact)
‘Loss Of Earning Capacity Due to Disability’ (Rs.6,500 x 15 / 100 x 17 x 12) Loss of earnings during laid of period(Rs.6,500 x 3 months)	: Rs. : Rs.	1,98,900/- 19,500/-

¶59

TOTAL : Rs. 4,98,400/-

¶60

¶61

Therefore, the appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,98,400/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,90,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,08,400/- (Rs.4,98,400 – Rs.2,90,000), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶62

Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶63

i. The appeal is allowed in part . ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,08,400/(Rupees Two Lakh Eight Thousand Four Hundred

¶64

Only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶66

¶67

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶68

iv. Draw award accordingly.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

JUDGE

¶71

Manjunath @ Manjegowda v. Yuvaraja v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath @ Manjegowda v. Yuvaraja v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sharavana Prabha Vs the Manager

Mr Siddeshi Vs Mr Mohammed Saifulla

T L Indramma Vs Dhanu Singh

Smt. Nagaveni Vs Sri G S Aliver

Smt. Janaki Vs Sri G S Aliver

Mohammed Athiq Vs Rafiq