In a traffic accident appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 494,366 to Rs. 7,38,206 due to errors in assessing lost income and amenities, granting 6% interest on the enhanced amount.
Enhanced compensation granted at Rs. 7,38,206/- with 6% per annum interest from date of petition till realization.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1934 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT.SHOBHA.G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5193/2015 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
NC: 2023:KHC:40057 MFA No. 1934 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.5193/2015 dated 05.10.2016 on the file of X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH16) Bangalore. The said petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident dated 30.08.2015.
said bus reached near Park, Ananthapuram, at that time, driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and drove it on road divider and dashed to the Eicher Van bearing No. KA.53/A.1745 which was coming from
NC: 2023:KHC:40057 MFA No. 1934 of 2017
opposite direction. Due to the impact, the claimant had sustained several injuries and he was shifted to Ananthapuram General Hospital, wherein, he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Sparsh hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. He had spent huge amount and he also sustained disability. The Court below had observed that as per the evidence of the doctor, the claimant had sustained Polytrauma with lever laceration, splenic laceration, B/L lung contusion with hemopneumotharacies, right sterno/clavicular joint dislocation, multiple left rib fracture and fracture transverse (LT) process 4-3 vertebra and the doctor has assessed the disability to the limb at, 33% and to the whole body disability at 11%, but and the Court had taken the disability at 9%. When it comes to the income, the Court below had considered that the claimant has produced the income tax returns for the year 2014-2015 marked as Ex.P16, income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-2016 marked as Ex.P17 and also produced VAT registration certificate which is marked as Ex.P14, which is
valid from 09.09.2007. According to the claimant, he is running a shop in the name and style of the S.P Industrial Shopping. The Court has observed that the petitioner has not filed any material before the Court to show that because of the injury sustained and the disability suffered he had closed down the business. As per the income for the year 2014-2015, the income is Rs.5,02,687/-. Therefore, for the assessment year 2015-2016, it had come at Rs.5,73,075/-. The Court has observed that he had not produced any income tax returns prior to the assessment year 2014-2015 to find out whether there is any reduction of the income. However, the Court considering the disability at 9% notional income at Rs.7,000/- had granted an amount of Rs.83,160/- under the head of loss of future income, under the head of loss of income during laid up period considering a period of 4 months, Court below had granted an amount of Rs.28,000/- at Rs.7,000/- per month. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted under the head of loss of future
NC: 2023:KHC:40057 MFA No. 1934 of 2017
amenities and happiness and all together, compensation of an amount of Rs.4,94,366/- is granted.
case, as per evidence of the claimant, he is doing business. To support his income, he has produced before
the Court Ex.P16, Ex.P14 and Ex.P17 and as per the income tax returns, his income is Rs.5,02,687/-. The Court has not considered the said evidence holding that he has not filed the income tax returns before the date of accident to show that there is any loss of future income. But interestingly, the Court had considered the notional income at Rs.7,000/ - and granted the loss of income during laid up period and for permanent disability, at Rs.83,160/-. This Court finds that the said finding given by the Tribunal is not sustainable for the reason and there is evidence on record about the income and the Court gives
a finding that there is no evidence. The Court below after considering the income as per the income tax return and when the Court disbelieved the same on the ground that there is no reduction of income, then proceeds to consider
the income at Rs.7,000/- notionally and grants the compensation at Rs.83,160/-. The Court below on one issue has correctly appreciated the evidence and when
NC: 2023:KHC:40057 MFA No. 1934 of 2017
considering disability, it has not considered the aspect of loss of future income on the ground that there is no evidence of impact on the future income. In this case, Court had rightly observed that exhibits Ex.P16 and 17 shows that there is no reduction of income. The Court below ought not to have granted any income under the head of loss of future income. But when it comes to the injury sustained by the claimant which is Polytrauma with lever laceration, splenic laceration, B/L lung contusion with hemopneumotharacies, right sterno/clavicular joint dislocation, multiple left rib fracture and fracture transeverse (LT) process 4-3 vertebra, considering the injuries, discomfort effect on his future life. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under the head of loss of income of amenities and happiness, under the head of pain and sufferings, considering the disability and hospitalization, this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/under attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses and transport charges, the Court
below had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- and this Court deems it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical bills. The Court below has rightly granted an amount of Rs.2,88,206/- basing on the evidence available on record. Then coming to the loss of income during the laid up period, considering the income at Rs.5,00,000/- per annum, even in the absence of the petitioner still the business would be running, this Court is inclined to take the loss of income per month at 20,000x3 = Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.
an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. All together the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.7,38,206/-.
1 (2014) 11 SCC 178
| Heads | Com Awar |
pensation ded |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pain and suffering | : | Rs. | 1,00,000.00 |
| 2. | Medical and other Expenses |
: | Rs. | 2,88,206.00 |
| 3. | Loss of amenity | : | Rs. | 2,50,000.00 |
| 4. | Loss of during the laid up period 20,000x3 |
: | Rs. | 60,000.00 |
| 5. | Transport, Extra Nourishment and Attendant Charges |
: | Rs. | 30,000.00 |
| 6. | Legal Expenses | : | Rs. | 10,000.00 |
| Total | : | Rs. | 7,38,206.00 |
Rs.7,38,206/-.
iii) Accordingly, claim petition is partly allowed . By enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.4,94,366/- to Rs.7,38,206/The enhanced amount will carry 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the compensation awarded which is exorbitant. This Court has perused the award. The Court below basing on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy2 had granted 9% interest and this Court is not inclined to reduce the said amount. However, the enhanced compensation amount will carry only 6% interest per annum.
2 (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100)
NC: 2023:KHC:40057 MFA No. 1934 of 2017
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment awarding compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident requires enhancement.
Whether the award of interest on the enhanced compensation should be reduced from 9% to 6% p.a.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Mekala vs M. Malathi and AnotherApplied¶6
V.MEKALA –vs M.MALATHI AND ANOTHER (2014) 11 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
Municipal Council of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar TragedyApplied¶57
Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srinivasaiah.A
The Managing Director, K S R T C
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
