Partly allowed

Smt. Ranjana W/O. Suresh Gasti v. Shankrappa S/O. Gangappa Ganiger

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024MFA/102424/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows three miscellaneous first appeals filed by passengers involved in a road traffic accident. The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for each claimant, addressing heads like pain and suffering and loss of future income, and expressly directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amounts with interest, rejecting defenses based on permit violations.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded to three claimants totaling Rs. 4,38,530 with interest at 6% p.a., to be deposited by the insurance company within four weeks.

Smt. Ranjana W/O. Suresh Gasti Vs Shankrappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102426 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102424 OF 2018 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102425 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶8

IN MFA NO.102426/2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. TARAVVA W/O. GIRIMALLA SHIVANAKKANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE (COOLIE) R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SHANKRAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA GANIGER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SUBRAMANI BUILDING, #1, 2ND FLOOR CLUB HOUSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002 TAMILNADU STATE.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 NOTICE SERVED)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶22

ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND SADDLE THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENTS, BY SETTING-ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26/02/2018 IN MVC NO.292/2017, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.V JAMKHANDI AND ETC.

¶23

IN MFA NO.102424/2018

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SMT. RANJANA W/O. SURESH GASTI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE (COOLIE) R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SHANKRAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA GANIGER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶30

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SUBRAMANI BUILDING, #1, 2ND FLOOR CLUB HOUSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002 TAMILNADU STATE.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 NOTICE SERVED)

¶33

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND SADDLE THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENTS, BY SETTING-ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26/02/2018 IN MVC NO.291/2017, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.V JAMKHANDI AND ETC.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶36

IN MFA NO.102425/2018

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SMT. ANNAWWA W/O. MAHALINGAPPA NYAMAGOUD AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE (COOLIE) R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶39

…APPELLANT

¶40

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

SHANKRAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA GANIGER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: JAMKHANDI DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301.

¶43

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SUBRAMANI BUILDING, #1, 2ND FLOOR CLUB HOUSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002 TAMILNADU STATE.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 NOTICE SERVED)

¶46

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND SADDLE THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENTS, BY SETTING-ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26/02/2018 IN MVC NO.293/2017, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.V JAMKHANDI.

¶47

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶52

As the appeals are arising out of common judgment and award passed by the tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶53

The above appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.V, Jamkhand, the tribunal in MVC No.291/2017, MVC No.292/2017 and MVC No.293/2017 and also prayed to fastening the liability on the insurance company instead of owner of vehicle.

¶54

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are referred to in the claim petitions before the tribunal.

¶55

Brief facts of the case of the claimants before the tribunal are as under:-

¶56

On 29.12.2016, at 05:30 p.m. all the petitioners were traveling as passengers in Bajaj 3 wheeler passenger

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶59

autorickshaw cab bearing registration No.KA 48/7701 from Kokatanur to Kadakol and when the autorickshaw came on Lingadakatti to Kadkol PWD road near Sakreppagol land in high speed in rash and negligent manner, at that time, two dogs which were quarelling at each other came in front of the autorickshaw, all of a sudden, the driver applied brake and thus, turtled down the autorickshaw into a ditch and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, these claimants sustained injuries and they were shifted to Dr. G.N. Sanadi hospital for treatment, where the first informant lodged the complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, all the petitioners/claimants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V. Act on the ground that they sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident and the concerned Doctor have issued permanent disability to all the claimants and sought for compensation before the tribunal.

¶60

Considering the oral evidence on record, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,99,570/-, Rs.2,21,520/- and Rs.1,83,570/- respectively in favour of the claimants in respective appeals.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶63

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, the appellants/claimants have filed these appeals contending that the tribunal has not considered the income of the claimants, the tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation under the heads 'pain and suffering, 'loss of amenities' and the tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the heads 'loss of income during laid up period', 'loss of future income. Further, the tribunal has saddled liability on the owner of the offending vehicle instead of saddling liability on the insurance company. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the claimants prayed to allow the appeals.

¶64

Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.2insurance company contended that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is contrary to the documents and evidence on record. The tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that insured vehicle was registered to ply within 7kms of Jamakhandi and permit was valid within 10kms radius and the accident occurred near Lingadakatti-Kadkol road near Jamakhandi Taluk. Further the autorickshaw was not having valid and effective permit to ply the autorickshaw beyond the jurisdiction of Jamakhandi City. Thus the owner of the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶67

autorickshaw has violated the policy condition. Further, the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA.48/7701 had seating capacity of 3 + 1. Further, on the date of the accident, in all, eight persons had traveled in the autorickshaw including the driver of the autorickshaw. Therefore, there is violation of permit conditions as well as terms and conditions of the policy, as there were five excess passengers in the autorickshaw. Hence, the tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the owner of the autorickshaw. On all these grounds, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the appellants/claimants.

¶68

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company and perused the judgment and award of the tribunal.

¶69

In view of the contentions urged by both the parties, the following points that arise for Court's consideration in the appeals are:-

¶70

Whether the insurance company has made out sufficient grounds that at the time of the accident, the driver of the autorickshaw had no

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶73

valid and effective driving licence, permit and there were excess passengers and hence there was violation of breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation?

¶74

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in the claim petitions are just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

¶75

Learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur, appearing for respondent No.2 -Insurance company has taken up the contention that the driver of the autorickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the autorickshaw had no permit to ply the same beyond 10kms radius of Jamakhandi City and in all eight persons including driver had traveled in the autorickshaw and hence, there was breach of policy conditions. Learned counsel further contended that so far as income of the claimants taken by the tribunal while calculating the compensation is concerned, the same are all on higher side and the compensation granted on all heads are reasonable and the tribunal has rightly saddled responsibility on the owner of the

¶76

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶78

autorickshaw. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants who traveled in the autorickshaw on the date of the accident.

¶79

The main contention of the insurer of the offending autorickshaw is that the driver of the autorickshaw was not holding effective driving licence (as on the date of the accident). In that regard, the insurance company got examined one Bahubali, Senior Executive(Legal) of RW.2 and also examined one Ravindranath Mallappa Firangi, ARTO, Jamkhandi and also relied upon Ex-R1 authorisation letter, Ex-R2 Insurance policy, Ex-R3 extract of registration certificate and Ex-R4 permit particulars issued by ARTO, Jamakhandi.

¶80

Per-contra, the appellants/claimants were examined as PWs-1 to 3 and the concerned Doctor who issued disability certificate was examined as PW-4. The claimants relied upon Exs-P1 to P23. As per Ex-P1 FIR, Ex-P2 complaint, Ex-P3 certified copy of the agreement details and Ex-P6 charge sheet, they do not indicate that the driver of the autorickshaw had no driving licence as on the date of the accident and the driver was not charged for the offences under Sections 3 or 4 r/w 180 of IMV Act. Neither the insured nor the Insurer of the

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶83

autorickshaw have challenged the contents of the charge sheet. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company in that regard.

¶84

Learned counsel for the insurance company has taken up one more contention that the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA 48/7701 was found plying without valid permit near Sakreppagol land on Lingadakatti to Kadakol PWD road within the limits of Jamkhandi and thus violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Infact, the offending autorickshaw was having permit to ply within 10 kms radius from Jamakhandi city.

¶85

The Insurance Company cannot deny its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle had not plied at the place where the accident took place. Plying autorickshaw beyond permit limits does not amount to violation of condition of policy. As per Ex-R4, permit issued by the concerned ARTO, was in force. It is not a case of no permit, it is a case of having permit and plying the vehicle beyond the permit area. In such circumstances, the coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.201648/2015 dated 26.11.2020 at paragraphs 7 and 8 has observed as follows:

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶88

“7.The insurance company has not seriously disputed the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the same and also the liability to satisfy the award amount. However, grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the direction of the learned Tribunal to satisfy the award amount entirely by the insurance company without giving a further direction to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in the factual background that the accident has taken place within the State of Andhra Pradesh where the offending vehicle had no permit to ply is clearly unjustified. The fact that the offending vehicle was having valid permit to ply in the State of Maharashtra is not in dispute. Further it was brought to our notice that Ex.R7 (policy of Insurance) does not contain any term regarding the aspect of permit. The observation of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.30752/2011 C/W MFA No.30753/2011 and MFA No.30388/2012 (MV) dated 11.07.2018 at para-10 reads as follows:

¶89

“There is no dispute about the auto-rickshaw having insurance coverage as on the date of occident, according to the insurance company, since six passengers travelled in it and that the accident occurred at a place beyond the area permitted for plying and therefore its liability to indemnify the owner gets exonerated. It is not possible to accept this argument. It is not the case that there was no permit at all for the autorickshaw. It had a valid permit, but it was taken beyond the permitted limit. There is some difference between the two. If there is no permit at all, or if a transport vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by the permit as envisaged in S.149 (2) (a) (i) (c), the insurance company need not indemnify the liability of the insured for violation of policy condition. But where a vehicle is taken beyond the limits, it cannot be said that there is violation of policy condition, it is contravention of permit condition which is punishable according to S.192A of the Motor Vehicles Act."

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶92

In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that since the offending vehicle did not have any permit to ply in the State of Andhra Pradesh, insurance company has no liability to satisfy the award amount cannot be accepted and accordingly the contention put forth in this behalf is rejected.”

¶93

(emphasis supplied)

¶94

Observing similar ratio as held in MFA

¶95

No.104379/2018 c/w MFA No.100403/2020 dated 30.01.2024,

¶96

the coordinate Bench of this Court at para 17 has observed that in view of the facts and circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal insofar as owner’s liability to pay compensation is concerned is set-aside. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall indemnify respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the offending auto.

¶97

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present cases and the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, respondent No.2-insurance company cannot escape from its liability and it has to indemnify respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the offending autorickshaw.

¶98

Learned counsel for the insurance company has taken up another contention that there were eight passengers in the

¶99

13 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶101

autorickshaw and thereby, there was violation of another policy condition.

¶102

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs K.M.Poonam & Ors reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2802 has held that whenever excess passengers travel in a transport vehicle, the liability of the insurer is confined to number of persons covered by the insurance policy. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam & Ors reported in AIR (2007) SC 2870 clearly held that "if more than permitted number of passengers travel in a vehicle, the insurer is bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Therefore, it is clear that liability of the insurance company is only to the extent of permitted number of passengers.

¶103

The coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.104379/2018 dispose off on 31.01.2024, at para 8 clearly observed that " In view of the above, the contention of the

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶106

learned counsel for the insurance company that since the offending vehicle did not have any permit to ply, insurance company has no liability to satisfy the award amount cannot be accepted and accordingly the contention put forth in this behalf is rejected."

¶107

In these cases, the contention of the insurance company is that there were eight passengers in the autorickshaw, but the claim petitions were made on behalf of only three passengers and there was no claim by other five passengers. Therefore, the insurance company has to indemnify the liability of the owner of the autorickshaw. Therefore, the tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the owner of the autorickshaw instead of fastening the liability on the insurance company.

¶108

Further, RW-2 has clearly stated that the accident occurred 10kms away from Jamakhandi City and from perusal of para 18 of the judgment, learned counsel for the insurance company has taken up the contention that "the counsel has relied on a document i.e., letter issued by AEE, Irrigation Jamkhandi, wherein it is contended that from Jamakhandi to

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶110

15 -

¶111

Lingadakatti, the distance is 7kms and from Jamakhandi to Kadkol, the distance is 9kms and the learned counsel contended that the claimants were proceeding to Kokatanur and as per the documents, it comes within Athani Taluk and as such, there is violation of policy, since the offending vehicle did not have permit to ply within Athani Taluk and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. As per the material available on record and the admission made by RW-1, it goes to show that the autorickshaw in question plied within the radius of 12kms from Jamakhandi city. Since the policy was in force and permit was in force, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award amount, cannot be accepted, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Roopa W/o. Nagesh Basarakod and another v. Sri. Raghavendra and Another (MFA No.104379/2018 and connected matter dated 30.01.2024 ) .

¶112

REG: MFA No.102426/201 (MVC No.292/2017)

¶113

Sofar as quantum is concerned, to substantiate the claim of the claimant- Smt. Taravva(MVC No.292/2017), she herself got examined on oath as PW-2 and relied on wound

¶114

16 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No.

¶116

102425 of 2018

¶117

certificate as per Ex-P12. As per Ex-P12, the claimant Taravva suffered the following injuries:-

¶118

Cut lacerated wound on left knee joint with tear of ligamentum patella, patella bone exposed, scratch at cortex of patella 15 x 10 cm size bony deep.

¶119

Cut lacerated wound on left great toe 3 x 1 cm.

¶120

PW-4 Dr. G.N. Sanadi, Private Ortho Surgeon, Jamkhandi has been examined by the claimant, who issued disability certificate in favour of the claimant.

¶121

From perusal of Ex-P12, the claimant sustained one grievous injury and a simply injury. For one grievous injury, as per settled law, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and for one simple injury, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.45,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶122

Towards 'Nourishment, conveyance and attendant

¶123

charges' , the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is reasonable one. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,610/-

¶124

17 -

¶125

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶126

towards 'medical expenses' , which is reasonable one and no interference in that regard is called for by this Court.

¶127

Towards 'loss of income during laid up period' , the tribunal has not awarded any compensation. As per the material available on record, the claimant has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, the claimant's income is assessed at Rs.8,750/- notionally which is reasonable one. Having regard to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income to be taken is at Rs.8,750/- in the absence of proof of income. The nature of the injuries suggest that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of three months and therefore, a sum of Rs.26,250/- (Rs.8,750 x 3) is awarded under the said head.

¶128

Towards 'loss of future income due to disability' , the tribunal has not awarded fair compensation. The accident is of the year 2016. The income of the claimant is taken at Rs.8,750/- per month. The disability is considered at 12% by the tribunal, which is reasonable one. Considering the age of the claimant, the multiplier applicable is '14'. Then the compensation under the head 'loss of future income due to

¶129

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶130

18 -

¶131

disability' would be Rs.1,76,400/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 14 x 12/100). Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,76,400/- is awarded under the said head as against Rs.1,20,960/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶132

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities' . Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of amenities', considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period spent during the time of hospitalisation'.

¶133

Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation under the following heads:-

¶134

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and Suffering	45,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000/-
Medical expenses	28,610/-
Loss of income during laid up period	26,250/-
Loss of future income due to disability	1,76,400/-
Loss of amenities	30,000/-
TOTAL	3,26,260/-
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	1,99,570/-
BALANCE	1,26,690/-

¶135

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶136

19 -

¶137

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,26,260/- as against Rs.1,99,570/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶138

REG:MFA No.102424/2018 (MVC No.291/2017)

¶139

Sofar as quantum is concerned, to substantiate the claim of the claimant- Smt. Ranjana(MVC No.291/2017), she herself got examined on oath as PW-1 and relied on wound certificate as per Ex-P5. As per Ex-P5, the claimant Ranjana suffered the following injuries:-

¶140

Grade II compound, communated fracture

¶141

radius/ulna right side with extensor tendon injury of right thumb.

¶142

Abrasion injury on right heel with loss of skin on heelpad.

¶143

PW-4 Dr. G.N. Sanadi, Private Ortho Surgeon, Jamkhandi

¶144

has been examined by the claimant, who issued disability certificate in favour of the claimant.

¶145

20 -

¶146

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶147

From perusal of Ex-P5, the claimant sustained one grievous injury and a simply injury. For one grievous injury, as per settled law, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and for one simple injury, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.45,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶148

Towards 'Nourishment, conveyance and attendant

¶149

charges' , the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is reasonable one. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.41,920/towards 'medical expenses' , which is reasonable one and no interference in that regard is called for by this Court.

¶150

Towards 'loss of income during laid up period' , the

¶151

tribunal has not awarded any compensation. As per the material available on record, the claimant has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, the claimant's income is assessed at Rs.8,750/- notionally, which is reasonable one. Having regard to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income to be taken is at Rs.8,750/- in the absence of proof of income. The nature of the

¶152

21 -

¶153

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶154

injuries suggest that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of three months and therefore, a sum of Rs.26,250/- (Rs.8,750 x 3) is awarded under the said head.

¶155

Towards ' loss of future income due to disability ', the tribunal has not awarded fair compensation. The accident is of the year 2016. The income of the claimant is taken at Rs.8,750/- per month. The disability is considered at 10% by the tribunal, which is reasonable one. Considering the age of the claimant, the multiplier applicable is '18'. Then the compensation under the head 'loss of future income due to disability' would be Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 18 x 10/100) as against Rs.1,29,600/- awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶156

¶157

22 -

¶158

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶159

Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation

¶160

under the following heads:-

¶161

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and Suffering	45,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000/-
Medical expenses	41,920/-
Loss of income during laid up period	26,250/-
Loss of future income due to disability	1,89,000/-
Loss of amenities	30,000/-
TOTAL	3,52,170/-
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	2,21,520/-
BALANCE	1,30,650/-

¶162

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,52,170/- as against Rs.2,21,520/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶163

REG: MFA No.102425/2018 (MVC No.293/2017)

¶164

Sofar as quantum is concerned, to substantiate the claim of the claimant- Smt. Annawwa(MVC No.293/2017), she herself got examined on oath as PW-3 and relied on wound certificate as per Ex-P18. As per Ex-P18, the claimant Annawwa suffered the following injuries:-

¶165

23 -

¶166

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶167

Degloving injury over left knee joint with tear of knee joint capsule 15 x 10 cm bony deep.

¶168

Compression fracture D10, D11 and D12 vertebral bodies.

¶169

Severe contusion right shoulder joint with neorproxia right upper limb.

¶170

Zig-Zag cut lacerated wound right paraitooccipital region 12 x 10 cm bony deep.

¶171

PW-4 Dr. G.N. Sanadi, Private Ortho Surgeon, Jamkhandi has been examined by the claimant, who issued disability certificate in favour of the claimant.

¶172

From perusal of Ex-P18, the claimant sustained three grievous injuries and one simply injury. For one grievous injury, as per settled law, the claimant is entitled for a compensation Rs.40,000/- and for each additional grievous injury, claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for one simple injury, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.65,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶173

24 -

¶174

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶175

Towards 'Nourishment, conveyance and attendant

¶176

charges' , the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is reasonable one. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.63,010/towards 'medical expenses', which is reasonable one and no interference in that regard is called for by this Court.

¶177

Towards 'loss of income during laid up period' , the tribunal has not awarded any compensation. As per the material available on record, the claimant has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, the claimant's income is assessed at Rs.8,750/- notionally which is reasonable one. Having regard to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services authority, the notional income to be taken is at Rs.8,750/- in the absence of proof of income. The nature of the injuries suggest that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of three months and therefore, a sum of Rs.26,250/- (Rs.8,750 x 3) is awarded under the said head.

¶178

¶179

25 -

¶180

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶181

the tribunal, which is reasonable one. Considering the age of the claimant, the multiplier applicable is '7'. Then the compensation under the head 'loss of future income due to disability' would be Rs.1,02,900/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 7x 14/100). Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,02,900/- is awarded under the said head as against Rs.70,520/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶182

¶183

Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation under the following heads:-

¶184

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and Suffering	1,25,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000/-
Medical expenses	63,010/-
Loss of income during laid up period	26,250/-
Loss of future income due to disability	1,02,900/-
Loss of amenities	30,000/-
TOTAL	3,67,160/-
Compensation awarded by the

¶185

26 -

¶186

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶187

Tribunal		1,83,570/-
	BALANCE	1,83,590/-

¶188

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,67,160/- as against Rs.1,83,570/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶189

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶190

ORDER

¶191

The appeals are allowed-in-part.

¶192

The judgment and award dated 26.02.2018 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Juge and Member, MACT-V, Jamakhandi in MVC No.291/2017, MVC No.292/2017 and MVC No.293/2017 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶193

The claimant in MFA No.102426/2018 (MVC No.292/2017) is entitled for an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,26,690/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶194

The claimant in MFA No.102424/2018 (MVC No.291/2017) is entitled for an additional enhanced

¶195

27 -

¶196

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8954 MFA No. 102426 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 102424 of 2018, MFA No. 102425 of 2018

¶197

compensation of Rs.1,30,650/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶198

The claimant in MFA No.102425/2018 (MVC No.293/2017) is entitled for an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,590/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶199

Respondent No.2- Insurance Company Ltd., shall deposit the enhanced compensation amounts with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶200

On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount.

¶201

As the liability is saddled on the insurance company instead of owner of the offending vehicle, the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensations amount including the enhanced compensation to the claimants.

¶202