Partly allowed

Sathish K H v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2022MFA/5606/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a motor accident claim appeal in part. Enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,87,149 to Rs.2,23,149, primarily by recalculating future earnings based on notional wages and the actual period of disability. Interest at 6% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,23,149 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Respondent to deposit amount within six weeks.

Sathish K H Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5606/2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SATHISH K.H. S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED 25 YEARS, R/A No.1577, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K S R T C DIVISION, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE M A C T, AT BENGALURU, (S C C H – 23) IN M.V.C.No.2275/2016, DATED 17.02.2017, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND IN ENHANCING THE AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the

¶19

consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement.

¶21

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶22

Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking

¶23

enhancement contending that the compensation granted is highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as such petitioner is entitled for enhancement. The compensation granted under various heads requires modification.

¶24

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that on

¶26

08.03.2016 at 9.30 a.m. he was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 02/HD 747 near Chokkasandra junction, NH-4 Service road, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. A KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 40 F 504 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), belonging to respondent, driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner came from behind the petitioner and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result the petitioner sustained injuries and permanent partial disability.

¶27

Respondent appeared and filed written statement denying the mode of accident, age, avocation income, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses incurred. The accident occurred due to the fault of the petitioner.

¶28

During enquiry petitioner has examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 14.

¶29

¶30

On behalf of Respondent one witness is

¶31

examined as RW-1.

¶32

Vide impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,87,149/- (but wrongly

¶33

stated as 2,27,149/-) as detailed below:

¶34

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	40,000
Loss of future earnings	75,600
Medical expenses	61,549
Conveyance, nutritious,	15,000
food and nourishment
Loss of income during laid up period	10,000
Loss of happiness,	15,000
inconvenience, discomfort
Future medical	10,000
expenses
TOTAL	1,87,149
Wrongly shown as	2,27,149

¶35

The respondent has not challenged the

¶36

impugned judgment and award.

¶37

¶38

Thus, petitioner is seeking enhancement contending that the compensation granted is on the lower side and needs interference by this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary to examine whether the compensation granted under various heads are just and proper and if not whether it is a fit case for interference.

¶39

Loss of future earnings: The incident has taken place on 08.03.2016. At the time of accident, petitioner was aged 24 years. He claims that he was working as a travel executive at LVB Travels, Bengaluru on a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, he has not produced any documents to evidence the said fact. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his income on notional basis as Rs.7,000/- p.m. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year 2016 the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/-.

¶40

¶41

12.1 As per the medical evidence, the petitioner has sustained 12.5% disability of whole body. The Tribunal has analysed the evidence of PW-2, who is non treating Doctor and observed that he has examined the petitioner on 25.01.2017 in connection with determination of disability after a long gap. Considering the cross-examination of PW2, wherein he has admitted that the fracture is united, there is no shortening of leg and there is no limping and the petitioner can lead a normal life with little difficulty, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 5%. I find no reason to interfere with the same. Since the petitioner was aged 24 years, 18 multiplier taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore the loss of earning due to permanent partial disability is 9,500 x 12 x 18 x 5% = 1,02,600/- Thus under the head loss of future earnings, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,02,600/- instead of 75,600/-.

¶42

Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal

¶43

has granted compensation for laid up period in a sum of

¶44

¶45

Rs.10,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, it would be reasonable to hold that he was under treatment for a period of 2 months. Since the income is taken 9,500/- for a period of 2 months, the compensation works out to Rs.19,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶46

Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.61,549/- and therefore it requires no interference.

¶47

Pain and suffering: Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, treatment taken the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It reasonable and adequate and as such requires no interference.

¶48

Food, Nourishment and Conveyance: The

¶49

Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head Conveyance, nourishment and it is reasonable and adequate and it requires no interference.

¶50

¶51

Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted

¶52

compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the loss of happiness and discomfort. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained, it call for no interference.

¶53

Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has also granted compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head future medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained, it is reasonable and calls for no interference.

¶54

Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for

¶55

compensation in a sum of Rs.2,23,149 as against Rs.1,87,149/- (but wrongly shown as 2,27,149) granted by the Tribunal as detailed below.

¶56

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Pain and sufferings	40,000	40,000
Loss of future	75,600	1,02,600
earnings
Medical expenses	61,549	61,549

¶57

¶58

Conveyance, nutritious, food and nourishment	15,000	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	10,000	19,000
Loss of happiness, inconvenience, discomfort	15,000	15,000
Future medical expenses	10,000	10,000
TOTAL	1,87,149 (wrongly shown as 2,27,149)	2,23,149

¶59

Of course petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation

¶63

in a sum of Rs.2,23,149/- as against 1,87,149/(wrongly shown as 2,27,149/-) granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited)

¶64

¶65

(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall

¶66

deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sathish K H v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish K H v. the Managing Director

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

Smt. Nagamma @ Nagmani Vs Sri. Papegowda G.H

Kum. Fathima Vs Mr. Dayananda Nayak

Smt Lakshmidevi Vs Mr Sali Mathew v

Sri Vasudeva Vs Sri Girish Kumar

Sri Narasegowda Vs Sri Girish Kumar

Smt Susheelamma Vs C Srininvas