Special Leave Petitioner challenged the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court increased compensation based on revised notional income and hospitalization days, allowing the appeal in part.
Additional compensation of Rs. 86,600/- granted at 6% interest; impugned award modified.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:23222 MFA No. 8153 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8153 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH K., S/O. KEBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT 179, DODDA ALADAMARADA ROAD, CHUNCHANAKUPPE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 130.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 19/7/22)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2012/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, [SCCH-15], 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
By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is posted for Admission and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent No.2.
Brief facts of the case:-
resulting in accidental injuries to the petitioner. The case was registered in Tavarekere police station under crime no. 141/2015 and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the tipper lorry. Petitioner contended that he was aged about 18 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and has spent money for his treatment, suffered permanent disability and therefore adequate compensation be awarded to him from the owner and the insurer of the tipper lorry.
NC: 2023:KHC:23222 MFA No. 8153 of 2018
| Sl.No. | Nature of the heads | Compensation (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pain and suffering | 40,000=00 |
| 2. | Loss of amenities of life | 21,000=00 |
| 3. | Medicine and hospital expenses |
64,500=00 |
| 4. | Conveyance, Nourished food and incidental expenses |
10,000=00 |
| 5. | Loss of earning for the laid | 20,000=00 |
| up period | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6. | Future loss of earning | 2,27,000=00 |
| 7. | Future medial expenses | 20,000=00 |
| Total | 4,02,500=00 |
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this court in appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:23222 MFA No. 8153 of 2018
prior to the renewal, it is a clear case wherein the principles laid down in the case of Swaran Singh is applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal would have fastened the liability on respondent no.2 initially, with liberty to respondent no.2 to recover the same from respondent no.1. Therefore, this issue regarding liability has to be answered holding that the respondent no.2 has to pay the compensation amount and then it is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent no.1.
limbs and there was also ORIF in respect of the pedicular bone and there is 50% disability to the whole body. In his opinion there is spinal disability with mobility component. The cross examination of PW-2 show that denials alone are elicited. PW2 ultimately comes to conclusion that there is 50% disability, but the Tribunal holds that there is 15% functional disability to him. The said assessment being made by the Tribunal is on the basis of its own assessment and it had benefit of seeing the petitioner before it. Therefore, without there being any material to know as to how the functional disability was assessed by the Tribunal, the opinion formed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with this appeal. The direct nexus between the spinal injury and the stated disability and weakness in the limbs should have been perceived by the Tribunal while recording the evidence of PW-1. Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that assessment of the disability cannot be interfered.
as a coolie. The guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribes the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month for the year 2015. In umpteen number of decisions, it is held that, that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant has to be held at Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 18 x 15% = Rs.2,91,600/-.
compensation awarded under remaining heads are adequate
and do not require any enhancement.
compensation under the following heads:
| Sl.No. | Nature of the heads | Compensation (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pain and suffering | 40,000=00 |
| 2. | Loss of amenities of life | 21,000=00 |
| 3. | Medicine and hospital expenses |
64,500=00 |
| 4. | Conveyance, Nourished food and incidental expenses |
25,000=00 |
| 5. | Loss of earning for the laid up period |
27,000=00 |
| 6. | Future loss of earning | 2,91,600=00 |
| 7. | Future medial expenses | 20,000=00 |
| Total | 4,89,100=00 | |
| Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal |
4,02,500=00 | |
| Addl. Compensation awarded |
86,600=00 |
NC: 2023:KHC:23222 MFA No. 8153 of 2018
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the liability for compensation should rest with the insured owner or the insurer given the renewal of the driver's license prior to the accident.
Whether the quantum of disability and compensation award by the Tribunal requires enhancement or modification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PAPPU V/S VINOD KUMAR LAMBAReferred¶37
PAPPU V/S VINOD KUMAR LAMBA (2018) 3 SCC 208 · Who else cites this
SWARAN SINGHApplied¶41
SWARAN SINGH (2004) 3 SCC 297 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURESH K.
LAL SAB
TATA AIG GENERAL INSU. CO. LTD.
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
