Partly allowed

Sri. Om Prakash Takur v. the Reliance Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 May 2023MFA/2996/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation for a motor vehicle accident. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,61,400 to Rs.2,37,205, adopting a higher notional income and adding compensation for loss of amenities and lay-up period.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,37,205/- with interest at 6% p.a., along with reimbursement of medical expenses and conveyance allowance.

Sri. Om Prakash Takur Vs the Reliance Gen. Ins… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2996 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. OM PRAKASH TAKUR @ OMPRAKASH S/O DAPOR TAKUR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.1072/1, BEERESWARANAGARA, CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 62.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT.NITHYA V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.H.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., O/AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 01, REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

SRI. MUNIRAJU D.C S/O CHANNARAYAPPA H., NO.247, 7TH CROSS, ANANDAGIRI EXTN., S.S. ASHRAM ROAD, C.N. HALLI, R.T. NAGARA, BANGALORE 32.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED)

¶18

¶19

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3848/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M AND XXIII A.S.C.J, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard arguments on both sides.

¶24

The appellant has preferred this appeal against

¶25

the judgment and award passed in MVC No.3848/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru (SCCH-25) dated 29.11.2016 for enhancement of compensation.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his arguments that the tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded lesser compensation to the appellant. The appellant has sustained grievous injuries to his left hand, hospitalized and underwent surgery. The appellant is working as a

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶29

carpenter and is working in an unorganized sector, no fool proof documents are able to be produced by him. But the tribunal has taken notional income of only Rs.6,000/-, which is very meager and tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities on all these ground sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the tribunal has passed judgment and award, in accordance with law that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case following points arises for consideration.

¶32

1) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?

¶33

2) What order of award?

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶36

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶37

Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order

¶38

REASONS

¶39

Point No.1 : In para Nos.9 and 10 of the

¶40

impugned judgment, the tribunal has observed as under:

¶41

"9. This court while considering the issue No.1 has come to the conclusion that, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor bearing No.KA-02-AE4362 which has resulted in injuries to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, due to accident the petitioner has sustained grievous injury of comminuted fracture L/E (L) radius and because of the said injury he is unable to attend his work of Carpentry permanently and lost the earning capacity. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. In this regard, the petitioner has examined

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶44

Doctor Ramachandra as PW.2 and produced OPD records and X-ray along with the wound certificate. PW.2 in his chief-examination has stated that, the petitioner has suffering from 28.37% disability of his left upper limb and 9.46% whole body disability. In the cross-examination, though he has admitted that, fracture has been united, he has specifically denied the suggestion of the respondent that, if the implants are removed, the restriction on movements would be relaxed and disability will be reduced. Therefore, except that, the fracture has been united, it appears the disability will be remained permanently. However, after laps of several years, it may come down around 8%. Therefore, in the opinion of this court the petitioner's disability shall be considered as 8% to his whole body.

¶45

10. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that, he was doing carpentry work. However, he has not

¶46

¶47

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶48

placed any documents that, he is a Carpenter. However, it cannot be forgotten that, he being aged about 30 years, he is not doing any work. Therefore his notional income from the Carpenter may be taken as Rs.6,000/per month. Since the petitioner is aged about 30 years the appropriate multiplier applicable to him is 16. Therefore in total the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.92,160/(Rs.6,000/-X12X16X8%=Rs.92,160/-) under the head of loss of future income. The petitioner has sustained fracture injury and hospitalized for 4-5 days. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. The petitioner has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs.39,205/-. Since the petitioner has produced the bills issued by the hospital, the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the said amount. In so far as conveyance and nourishment is concerned the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶51

total it comes around Rs.1,61,365/-. If it is rounded off, it comes around Rs.1,61,400/-. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for the said amount. In so far as the liability is concern the respondent No.1 is the RC owner and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. Accordingly issue No.2 held in the affirmative in part."

¶52

A perusal of this judgment it is crystal clear that

¶53

tribunal has taken notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- P.M. In view of the chart issued by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, the notional income to be taken when there is no proof on income is Rs.8,500/- to 9,000/- for the year 2014-15. The alleged accident took place on 09.09.2015. Hence, Rs.9,000/- has to be taken into consideration as notional income of the appellant. The age of the appellant is 30 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. Therefore, it has to be multiplied as

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶56

Rs.9,000/-X12X16X8%, it comes to Rs.1,38,240/- which is rounded of to Rs.1,38,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.1,38,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries, it is just and proper to award the compensation as under:

¶57

Sl.No.	Heads	By Tribunal	By this Court
1.	Pain and Suffering	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/- (As awarded by the tribunal)
2.	Medical Expenses	Rs.39,205/-	Rs.39,205/- (As awarded by the tribunal)
3.	Towards Conveyance and Nourishment	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of Future Income	Rs.92,160/-	Rs.1,38,000/-
5.	Loss of earning during treatment (laid up period)	-	Rs.5,000/-
6.	Loss of Amenities	-	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,61,400/- (Rs.1,61,365/- is rounded of to Rs.1,61,400/-)	Rs.2,37,205/-

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶60

The petitioner is entitled for the total

¶61

compensation of Rs.2,37,205/- as against Rs.1,61,400/awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,37,205/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

¶62

Point No.2 : For the aforesaid reasons and

¶63

discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

b) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶67

c) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,37,205/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶68

10 -

¶69

MFA No. 2996 of 2017

¶70

d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶71

e) Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶72

f) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶73

g) Draw an award accordingly.

¶74

h) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the tribunal.

¶75

SD/JUDGE

¶76

BH: List No.: 38 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Om Prakash Takur v. the Reliance Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Om Prakash Takur v. the Reliance Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.

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

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmi W/O Uday Alias Udaykumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Jafar Sadiq S/O. Raja Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Vs Anu @ Linga Shetty

Sri H M Karun Vs M/S SBI General Insurance

General Manager Vs Prakash N