Partly allowed

Smt. Jyothi W/O Mandar Shetty v. Riyaz Ahmed S/O Mehaboob Saptasagar

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024MFA/104289/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injured claimant sought enhancement of compensation for injuries in a road traffic accident. The High Court raised notional income from Rs.6,000 to Rs.8,000 per month per KSLSA chart, enhanced heads of compensation, and awarded Rs.3,69,700 with interest at 6% against Rs.2,71,900.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.3,69,700 with 6% interest; insurer to deposit within six weeks; modified award to be drawn.

Smt. Jyothi W/O Mandar Shetty Vs Riyaz Ahmed S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104289 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JYOTHI W/O MANDAR SHETTY AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL EMPLOYEE, R/O C/O. SMT. REETA HEGADE, ANNAPURNA BUILDING, OPP. MARUTI PETROL BUNK, SARASWATPUR, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

RIYAZ AHMED S/O MEHABOOB SAPTASAGAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KRISHNA NAGAR, SHAPUR ROAD, ICHALAKARANJI, TQ: HALAKALANGADI,

¶15

DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶17

K M SOMASHEKAR

¶18

Digitally signed by K MSOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶19

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TYT, HEAD OFFICE: MUMBAI, BRANCH OFFICE: BELLAD BUILDING, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both learned counsels, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

2. The claimant-injured is before this Court dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 09.05.2018 in M.V.C. No.132/2016 on the file of learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (for short, ‘Tribunal’), praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.R.Hegde for the appellant/injured, learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj C Kolloori for respondent/Insurer and perused the appeal papers.

¶29

4. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.06.2015 involving Innova Car bearing registration No.MH-10/AD-7400. It is stated that the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶32

appellant/claimant was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and she was working in a hotel, earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶33

5. On service of notice, respondent/Insurer appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was contended that the driver of Innova Car was not having valid and effective driving license. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶34

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 & PW3 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. Respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 apart from marking documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,71,900/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization on the following heads:

¶35

Pain & Suffering Rs.30,000/Medical expenses Rs.33,500/Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.18,000/Diet, nourishment, conveyance & Attendant charges Rs.20,000/Loss of future income due to disability Rs.1,40,400/Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-

¶36

Rs.20,000/Rs.1,40,400/Rs.30,000/- Rs.2,71,900/-

¶37

Total

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶40

7. While awarding the above compensation, the

¶41

Tribunal assessed notional income of the claimant/injured at Rs.6,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 13 and assessed the disability of the injured at 15% to the whole body. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

8. Sri.S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side, inasmuch as the claimant was working in a hotel and earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, learned counsel prays for assessing the income of the claimant/injured on the higher side. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is also on the lower side. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

9. Sri. Nagaraj C Kolloori, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurer submits that in the absence of cogent material on record to establish the income of the injured/appellant, the Tribunal is justified in assessing notional income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, learned counsel submits that taking note of evidence available on

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶46

record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads, which needs no interference. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to, w hether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?

¶48

11. Our answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons.

¶49

12. The occurrence of the accident that took place on 17.06.2015 involving Innova Car bearing registration No.MH10/AD-7400, resulting in injuries to the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of the appellant/claimant that she was working in a hotel and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant has not produced any cogent or acceptable material to establish that she was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on record to establish exact income of the appellant/claimant, this Court and Lok Adalath while

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶52

settling the accidental claims of the year 2015, normally would assess notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month, taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including

¶53

the minimum wage fixed. In the instant case also, in the absence of any material evidence to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine the income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- p.m. taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA including the minimum wage fixed.

¶54

13. The claimant examined the treated doctor as PW3. PW3-doctor has issued Disability Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P12. The evidence of PW3-doctor would disclose that the appellant/claimant has sustained fracture of type 3A both bones left forearm and fracture of left tibia and fibula. On examination of clinical and radiological examinations coupled with Ex.P12-Disability Certificate, PW3-Doctor has opined that the claimant/injured has sustained permanent physical disability to an extent of 43% to the upper and lower limb. The Tribunal assessed whole body disability of the injured at 15%, which in our view is just and proper and does not call for interference.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶57

14. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the claimant i.e. 50 years. The multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is 13. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,87,200/- (Rs.8,000 X 12 (months) x 13 (multiplier) x 15/100 (disability).

¶58

15. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/towards pain and suffering, which in our view is on the lower side and same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards of loss of amenities, which in our view is also on the lower side and therefore, same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . Since the claimant was an inpatient for about 15 days, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.24,000/- on the head of loss of income during laid up period for three months. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, which is on the lower side and same requires to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,500/- towards medical expenses, based on the medical bills produced by the claimant, which in our view is just and proper and same is undisturbed.

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶60

16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified

¶61

compensation as under:

¶62

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Pain & suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs. 33,500/-
3.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,87,200/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 50,000/-
5.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 24,000/-
6.	Nourishment food, attendant charges and conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,69,700/-

¶63

17. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,69,700/- as against Rs.2,71,900/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

18. In the result, we pass the following order:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

b) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,69,700/- as against Rs.2,71,900/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8644-DB MFA No.104289 of 2018

¶71

d) Respondent/Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶72

e) On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant.

¶73

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14

Smt. Jyothi W/O Mandar Shetty v. Riyaz Ahmed S/O Mehaboob Saptasagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyothi W/O Mandar Shetty v. Riyaz Ahmed S/O Mehaboob Saptasagar

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

Munnasab Nannusab Angdi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Rajesh Jakipiyedad Andraj Vs Shri Veeranagouda P Yeganagoudar

Smt. Renuka Alias Renavva Vs Divisional Controller

Dr. Srinivas Kosgi S/O Boodeppa K, Vs the State of Karnataka

Town Panhayat Siddapur Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Belagavi Urban Development Authority Vs Shri Vijay S/O. Baburao Majukar