Partly allowed

Ravikumar v. Narayana G

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023MFA/4825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Vehicles Court award of Rs.5,73,796/- in a motor accident claim. Court enhanced compensation for loss of future income and loss of income during laid-up period to Rs.71,100/- surplus, rejecting other heads, upheld by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.71,100/- with interest at 6% p.a.; respondent to deposit total amount within six weeks.

Ravikumar Vs Narayana G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4825 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVIKUMAR, S/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O KANCHIGANAHALLI, NO.23, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU-572 117.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SRIDHAR D S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

NARAYANA G, S/O GUTTAPPA, MAJOR, R/O VISWANATHAPURA, HAREKERE POST, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶15

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, V AND VI FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SHUBHAM N.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 01.03.2018)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3342/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC.No.3342/2016 dated 16.03.2017 by the X Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the appellant has awarded a sum of Rs.5,73,796/- as compensation.

¶23

The petitioner contended that on 20.04.2016 at about 10.30 am, while he was proceedings on his motorcycle along with a pillion rider, near Jakkanahalli Gate, a Fortuner car bearing registration No.KA-04-ML-8646 came from opposite direction and collided against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Initially he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tiptur and thereafter, to Victoria Hospital. It was stated that he was inpatient for 24 days and had spent huge amount for the treatment and on account of injuries, he had

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶25

suffered permanent disability and as such, the he is entitled for adequate compensation.

¶26

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear despite service of notice and therefore, he was placed ex-parte . The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has appeared before the Tribunal and registered the claim petition contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and therefore, the liability be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. However, it is admitted that the policy was in force covering the said vehicle.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1, one witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked in evidence. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence.

¶28

After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,73,796/- under the different heads as below:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶31

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000/-
Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses	24,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period	48,000/-
Medical expenses	50,596/-
Loss of future income due to permanent disability	3,31,200/-
Future medical expenses	20,000/-
Loss of future amenities and happiness	40,000/-
TOTAL	5,73,796/-

¶32

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal and has sought for enhancement of the compensation as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low and meagre.

¶33

On issuance of notice by this Court, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and the notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with. The arguments by both the sides were heard.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that the he had sustained crush injury involving right arm, right elbow and right forearm, fracture of both the bones of right leg and lacerated wound over the left foot. He was inpatient for a period of 23 days and contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶36

month by doing agricultural activities. He claimed that he was having 2 acres of land but the RTC extracts were not produced. The Tribunal held that the notional income of the petitioner to be Rs.8,000/- and proceeded to calculate the compensation. The evidence of PW.2, the Doctor who assessed the disability stated that there was 26% disability to the right lower limb and 59% to the right upper limb. PW.2 had stated that there is 33% whole body disability to the petitioner. The Tribunal noticing the fact that the disability to the lower limb may not cause much inconvenience to him, held that the whole body disability of 23% would be proper functional disability. The petitioner was aged 40 years as on date of the accident.

¶37

It is evident that the notional income of the petitioner was considered at Rs.8,000/- per month. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.9,500/- for the year 2016. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the claimant is considered at Rs.9,500/per month. The functional disability assessed by the Tribunal is

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶39

proper and correct and no fresh assessment is needed. Hence, the compensation under the head of 'loss of future income' is calculated as Rs.9,500/- X 12 X 15 X 23% = Rs.3,93,300/-.

¶40

Consequently, the compensation amount under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period' is calculated as Rs.9,500/- X 6 = Rs.57,000/-.

¶41

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads do not need any enhancement as it is just, proper and correct.

¶42

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶43

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000/-
Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses	24,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period	57,000/-
Medical expenses	50,596/-
Loss of future income due to permanent disability	3,93,300/-
Future medical expenses	20,000/-
Loss of future amenities and happiness	40,000/-
TOTAL	6,44,896/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	5,73,796/-
Enhancement	71,100/-

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:23840 MFA No. 4825 of 2017

¶46

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶47

compensation of Rs.71,100/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.71,100/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶51

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶52

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

NR/-

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89

Ravikumar v. Narayana G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar v. Narayana G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayalaxmamma Vs Savitha

Bhandamma Vs Kalleshappa

Syed Abdul Hameed S/O Syed Abdul Rajak Kazi and Ors. Vs Smt. Kursheed Begum W/O Gulam Rabbani Kazi and Ors.

Sri Shivahuchhaiah Vs the Managing Director

Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Sanamma

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Manager