Partly allowed

Rahul a v. Harshith a S

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2023MFA/1585/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged the Small Causes Court award in a motor accident case. The High Court calculated loss of future earnings based on notional income and increased the compensation awarded to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the impugned judgment modified to award an additional sum of Rs.1,88,320/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

Rahul a Vs Harshith a S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAHUL A,

¶9

S/O. ANJANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: #212, 6TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARINAGARA, HESARAGATTA MAIN ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI JAGADEESH H T, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

HARSHITH A S, S/O. SHANTHAKUMAR, NO.171,DOBBLE TANK, LAXMIPURA ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

¶15

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE: NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY MANAGER.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI D VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 27.07.2023)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 29.11.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.448/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Along with the appeal, appellant has filed IA No.1/2019 for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing

¶23

the appeal. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, delay of 65 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, IA No.1/2019 is allowed.

¶24

By consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal, though it is slated for orders.

¶25

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29-11-2018 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶27

MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.448/2018, whereby, a sum

¶28

of Rs.1,84,000/- has been awarded as compensation.

¶29

The petitioner contended that on 17-12-2017 at

¶30

about 3.40 p.m. he was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA.04.JE 6230 along with a pillion rider and when he reached near Dominus junction, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bengaluru, the driver of car bearing No.KA.03.AC.0041 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to which, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Unity Lifeline Hospital, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru, wherein he took

¶31

treatment as inpatient for 4 days. In the accident, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both the bones of left fore arm with abrasion. He contended that he was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and was a student and also doing the work of milk vending and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. It was contended that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is unable to

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶34

do his work and as such adequate compensation may be awarded to him.

¶35

On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 owner did not appear before the Tribunal and therefore, he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed objections contending that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It was also contended that the driver of the car was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

¶36

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Medical Officer who assessed the disability was examined as PW3 and Exs.P1 to 30 were marked in evidence, which was led by clubbing MVC No.449/2018 also. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced and produced by the insurance company.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶38

After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the

¶39

Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,83,100/(rounded off to Rs.1,84,000/-) under the different heads as below:

¶40

1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.30,000/-
2.	Medicalexpenses	Rs.58,100/-
3.	Food and nourishment, conveyance attendant charge and other incidental expenses	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss ofamenities	Rs.50,000/-
5.	Futuremedicalexpenses	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs. 1,83,100/-
	Rounded off to	Rs. 1,84,000/-

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner has approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation contending that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is abysmally low and inadequate.

¶42

On issuance of notice by this Court, respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

¶43

The arguments by both sides were heard.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that though PW3 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner had sustained disability to the extent of 30.02% to the left upper limb and 10% to the whole body, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of the loss of future earnings on account of the disability. It is submitted that the petitioner was an Engineering student and disability to the left arm is going to affect his career and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2Insurance company contended that the Tribunal has considered the loss of future income along with the loss of amenities in life and therefore, there is no need for enhancement of the compensation.

¶47

From the perusal of the available records, it is seen that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that

¶48

loss of future income is not admissible to the petitioner in view of the fact that he was not an earning member and

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶50

his avocation was not established. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and he has stated in his affidavit evidence that he was also a milk vendor and used to supply the milk. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. When the income of the petitioner is not established, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income in order

¶51

to assess the loss of future income on account of disability. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month for the year 2017. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is accepted as Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶53

It is evident that petitioner is a student and he

¶54

has suffered fracture of both the bones. The evidence of PW3 who has examined the petitioner, assessed the disability at 30.02% and at 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to have considered the existing disability. Therefore, it is evident that the Tribunal has erred in holding that there cannot be any loss of future income. In the considered opinion of this Court, the functional disability of the petitioner is 7% and therefore, loss of future income is calculated as :11,000/- x 12 x 18 x 7% =1,63,320/-.

¶55

As a consequence loss of income during laid up period has to be awarded for 2 months at Rs.22,000/(11,000*2).

¶56

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

¶57

the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, food, nourishment and conveyance, loss of amenities and future medical expenses do not require any interfere by this court.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶60

Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a

¶61

compensation of Rs.1,88,320/- under the following heads:

¶62

1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs. 58,100/-
3.	Food and nourishment, conveyance attendant charge and other incidental expenses	Rs. 20,000/-
4.	Loss of future earnings due to disability	Rs.1,66,320/-
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 22,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 50,000/-
5.	Future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,71,420/-
	Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement	Rs.1,83,100/- Rs.1,88,320/-

¶63

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,88,320/- in addition to what has been awarded by

¶64

the Tribunal with interest and in the result, the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed in

¶67

part.

¶68

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:26542 MFA No. 1585 of 2020

¶69

(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,88,320/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶70

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order with interest.

¶71

(vi) The rest of order passed by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Rahul a v. Harshith a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul a v. Harshith a S

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

H S Veerabhadraiah Vs Hanumanthappa

Jayanna B B Vs Mukthar Pasha

The Legal Manager Vs Chikkamuniswamy

Mr a Ramanath Vs Smt Prema N

The Managing Director Vs Darshan S

Smt Rajeshwari M Vs Mr a Zakeer Hussain