This appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded for a motor vehicle accident injury. The High Court increased compensation for lost future income and other heads based on medical evidence and notional income, reducing the interest rate to 6% per annum.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 492,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing 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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
ARKESHWARA S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT 1122 KARIGOWDA STREET HUNSUR TOWN AND POST HUNSUR TALUK-571 105.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
examined and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.197,180/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was working as real estate agent work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.4,500/- p.m. b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as CW-1. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the
claimant has suffered disability of 79.66% to particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 13%, which is on the lower side.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,00/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. In the absence of proof
of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
b) Secondly, the injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. Considering the nature of injuries, the disability stated by the doctor at 79.66.% is exorbitant and whole body disability taken by the Tribunal at 13% is on the higher side.
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
d) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:43325 MFA No. 343 of 2020
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
suffered disability of 79.66% to particular limb. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be taken at 25%. The claimant is aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.297,000/- (Rs.11,000129*25%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
'pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and future unhappiness’' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/- and
under the head of 'medical expenses including nourishment, attendance charges, conveyance’ from Rs.84,000/- to Rs.100,000/- . It is made clear that the said amount include the 'loss of income during laid-up period'.
| Compensation under different Heads |
As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) |
As awarded by this Court (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| Pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and future |
50,000 | 80,000 |
NC: 2023:KHC:43325 MFA No. 343 of 2020
| unhappiness | ||
|---|---|---|
| Medical expenses, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges |
84,000 | 100,000 |
| Loss of future income | 63,180 | 297,000 |
| Future medical expenses | 0 | 15,000 |
| Total | 197,180 | 492,000 |
ORDER
NC: 2023:KHC:43325 MFA No. 343 of 2020
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 47
DM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation awards should be enhanced based on medical evidence and statutory notional income guidelines.
At what rate of interest the compensation amount should carry.
Whether the delay period in filing the appeal warrants grant of interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others v Venkateshan. V and othersFollowed¶37
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020)
Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others v Venkateshan. V and othersFollowed¶62
'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ARKESHWARA S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH
DEEPA. P W/O. H. M. AMARESH
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
Parties & counsel
