Partly allowed

Sri. Gopal @ Malagopal v. Mehaboob Khan R.G. @ Basha

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024MFA/103289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a 2013 collision between an auto and a tipper lorry sought enhancement of the ₹1,69,500 awarded by the Tribunal at Ballari. Applying the Lok-Adalat notional income chart for 2013, the High Court recomputed heads including loss of future earnings, laid-up period, amenities, food/nourishment/attendant charges, enhancing compensation to ₹2,49,060 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ₹2,49,060 with 6% interest; insurer to deposit within six weeks or pay 9% interest; entire amount released to claimant.

Sri. Gopal @ Malagopal Vs Mehaboob Khan R.G. @ Basha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103289 OF 2017

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. GOPAL @ MALA GOPAL S/O. MALA ANJINEYULU @ ANJINEYULU, AGE: 32 YEARS, COOLIE CUM AGRICULTURIST AND MILK VENDOR, R/O: MECHIRI-VILLAGE, RAYADURGA, MANDAL, NOW R/O: NEAR APMC YARD, BENGALURU ROAD, BALLARI.

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

MEHABOOB KHAN R.G. @ BASHA S/O. P. RASOOL KHAN R.G., AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TIPPER LORRY, BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/5997, R/O: ATMAKUR STREET, RAYADURGA, D.NO.4/27, ANANTAPUR-DISTRICT.

¶10

BHARATHI H M

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

K. AYUB KHAN S/O. K. MEHABOOB KHAN, MUSLIM, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY, BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/5997, R/O: NEAR BALANJINEYA TEMPLE,

¶13

BENGALURU ROAD, BALLARI,

¶14

M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BALLARI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 D/W; SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYS TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN MVC NO.673/2013 DATED 05.05.2016 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IIND BALLARI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS. 1,69,500/-, RS.5,80,000/- MVC NO.673/2013 DATED 05.05.2016 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IIND AT BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in the judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed in MVC No.673/2013 by Motor Accidents claim Tribunal-II, Ballari.

¶23

The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that, on 08.01.2013 the petitioner was travelling in Auto bearing registration No.AP-02/X-7112 from Kunte Maremma Temple situated at Mallapura village on Rayadurga-Ballari road to go to Mechiri village and at about 5:45, when they reached near Chaddam village Gate on Rayadurga-Ballari road, at that time, the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-34/5997 came from opposite direction in a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto in which the petitioner was travelling and due to the said impact, the auto turned turtle and due to it, petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶25

The claimant made a petition claiming

¶26

compensation. The Tribunal after recording evidence and appreciating the materials on record has awarded the compensation as under:

¶27

Medical expenses	: Rs.	3,100-00
Pain and sufferings	: Rs.	30,000-00
Loss of Future Amenities	: Rs.	10,000-00
Loss of Future Income	: Rs.	71,400-00
Loss of Income during Laid	: Rs.	5,000-00
Up period
Loss of future prospects	: Rs.	50,000-00
Total	: Rs.	1,69,500-00

¶28

The claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and

¶30

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶31

Learned counsel for appellant would contend

¶32

that the alleged accident occurred in the year 2013 and as per chart prepared for settlement of disputes in Lok-Adalat

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶34

by the Legal Services Authority, the notional income fixed for the year 2013 is ₹7,000/- and the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the injured at ₹5,000. He further contends that the compensation awarded for loss of income during laid up period, loss of amenities are on lower side. He contends that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards food, nourishment and attendant charges, even though the claimant has been admitted in the Hospital for 15 days, with this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court

¶37

has perused the judgment awarded and the materials placed on record.

¶38

The accident has taken place in the year 2013 and the Tribunal has taken the income of the injured at

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶40

₹5,000/- per month. As per the chart prepared for settlement of disputes in Lok-Adalat by Legal Services Authority, the notional income fixed for the year 2013 is ₹7,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said income. The Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 7%.

¶41

In view of the above, the loss of future earnings is (₹7,000/- x 12 × 17 × 7/100) ₹99,960/-. The Tribunal has awarded loss of income during laid up period in a sum of ₹5,000/-. The claimant was admitted in Hospital for a period of 15 days. Considering the said aspect, the claimant is entitled to loss of income during laid up period for a period of 3 months (₹7,000 x 3 months) ₹21,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded loss of amenities ₹10,000/-. The claimant has sustained fracture and his disability is assessed at 7%. Considering the same claimant is entitled to ₹30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has not awarded towards food, nourishment and attendant charges, even though he was admitted in Hospital for a

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶43

period of 15 days. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to ₹15,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges. The Tribunal has rightly awarded ₹30,000/towards pain and suffering and ₹50,000/- towards future prospectus and ₹3,100/- towards medical expenses.

¶44

In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to

¶45

compensation as under:

¶46

Medical expenses	: Rs.	3,100-00
Pain and sufferings	: Rs.	30,000-00
Loss of Future Amenities	: Rs.	30,000-00
Loss of Future Income	: Rs.	99,960-00
Loss of Income during Laid	: Rs.	21,000-00
Up period
Loss of future prospects	: Rs.	50,000-00
Food, nourishment attendant	: Rs.	15,000-00
charges
Total	: Rs.	2,49,060-00

¶47

The claimant is entitled to total compensation of

¶48

₹2,49,060/- as against ₹1,69,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the following:

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13377 MFA No. 103289 of 2017

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii) The appellant/ claimant is entitled to total compensation of ₹2,49,060/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶53

iii) The respondent No.3/ insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which, it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶54

iv) The claimant is entitled to release of entire compensation.

¶55

v) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 is permitted to file vakalath within one week.

¶56

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

PJ CT:ANB

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Gopal @ Malagopal v. Mehaboob Khan R.G. @ Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gopal @ Malagopal v. Mehaboob Khan R.G. @ Basha

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

Chandan K @ Chandan Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Irfan K S S/O K S Abdul Samad Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Shri.Irangouda Basanagouda Patil

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shainaz W/O Salim Shaikh

Sri. Prasad Shivaji Naik Vs Mrs. Sugandha Yallappa Patil

Sri Jinnapa S/O Shivappa Jamkhandi Vs Sri Mayappa S/O Nagappa Pujari