Allowed

Mr. Harsha. N v. Mohammed Ashraf. M

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024MFA/3915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a collision with a tipper lorry sought enhancement of tribunal-awarded compensation. The Court revised notional income to Rs.14,000, applied multiplier 18 with 40% future prospects at 55% disability, and enhanced heads including pain and agony and loss of amenities. Appeal allowed; total raised from Rs.22,00,910 to Rs.39,17,390 with 6% interest payable by insurer.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Harsha. N Vs Mohammed Ashraf. M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3915 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. HARSHA N., S/O RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT DONDOLE HOUSE, DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MOHAMMED ASHRAF M, S/O ABDUL KUNHI HAJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O EDURUTHODU HOUSE, CHENGALA VILLAGE, EDANEERU POST - 671 542, KASARGODU, KERALA STATE, (OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING NO.KL-14-V-4599)

¶13

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TIGER HILLS, POST BOX NO.19, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, KASARGOD, KERALA STATE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶16

(POLICY NO.1020003118P111325973 FROM 03-12-2018 TO 03-12-2019)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR , ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1401/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELTHANGADY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belthangady (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1401/2019. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶25

That on 25.02.2019 at about 11.00 a.m., the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing registration

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶27

No.KA-19-ES-6029 from Kariyadka to Punacha, when he reached near to Periyalthadka, Gurume, Punacha village, Bantwala taluk, one tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-14-V-4599 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Wenlok District Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, to Mangala Hospital, Mangaluru and later to Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Surathkal, Mangaluru and again he was shifted to Benaka Health Centre, Ujire, wherein, the claimant took treatment as an inpatient for 92 days in all these hospitals. The claimant spent huge amount towards medicines and treatments.

¶28

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was doing Purohit work and earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of accident and injuries

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶30

suffered, the claimant is unable to do his work normally as he was doing prior to the occurrence of accident. In view of injuries suffered and financial expenditure expended, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶31

3.2 On service of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant including age, avocation, income and disability. It is also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and that the driver of the tipper lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of occurrence of accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶33

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and a witness as PW.2 and through Court Commissioner, three Doctors were examined as PWs.3 to

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶35

5 and another witness as PW.6 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P25. On the other hand, respondents did not adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.

¶36

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,00,910/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and also held respondent No.2-Insurance Company to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the compensation within 30 days from the date of the order.

¶37

3.6 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶38

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation,

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶41

which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶42

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P25, out of which, Exs.P1, P2, P4 to P6 are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the tipper lorry and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P3, P7 to P25 are the medical

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶46

records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶47

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income, it is stated that age of the claimant was 20 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has taken the income of Rs.8,000/- per month, in view of there being no proof of income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,000/- for the accident year 2019. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,000/-. The tribunal has applied the multiplier at ‘17', which is not correct. The age of the claimant being 20 years, the appropriate multiplier would be at ‘18’. Hence, the multiplier taken as ‘18’.

¶48

Three Doctors have been examined as PWs.3, 4 and 5, who are the Neuro Surgeon, Ophthalmologist Surgeon, Plastic surgeon and PW.6-Clinical Psychologist, have opined the disability to the extent of 65%, 10%, 15% and 73.17% respectively. Considering all these

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶50

aspects, the tribunal has assessed the disability at 55% to the whole body. However, considering the fact that the claimant has suffered neuro psychological cognitive physical disability and the whole body disability at 55%, 40% towards future prospects would have to be added to the income. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to

¶51

the compensation of Rs.23,28,480/- (Rs.14,000/- + 40% = Rs.19,600/- x 12 x 18 x 55%) towards loss of future income as against Rs.8,97,600/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶52

The tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.

¶53

Towards medical expenses, Rs.10,34,910/- is

¶54

awarded by the tribunal on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimant, which also does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶56

The tribunal has awarded Rs.18,400/- towards conveyance and attendant charges. It is seen that the claimant was inpatient for 92 days in all and taking the income at Rs.14,000/- per month, this Court deems it to appropriate to award Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 3) under this head.

¶57

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation

¶58

towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of enhancement of the income by this Court to Rs.14,000/per month and the claimant was inpatient for more than three months, the claimant would require atleast eight months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,12,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 8) under the head loss of income during laid up period.

¶59

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities. Considering the magnitude of the injuries and disability suffered by the claimant, this

¶60

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶61

Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- under

¶62

this head.

¶63

The tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of marital prospectus, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶64

In view of the above, the claimant would be

¶65

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.39,17,390/- as

¶66

against Rs.22,00,910/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶67

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and agony	1,00,000-00
Medical expenses	10,34,910-00
Loss of future income	23,28,480-00
Conveyance and attendant charges	42,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	1,12,000-00
Loss of amenities	1,00,000-00
Loss of marital prospectus	2,00,000-00
TOTAL	39,17,390-00

¶68

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) The appeal is allowed;

¶71

ii) The judgment and award dated 14.03.2022 passed in MVC.No.1401/2019 by the Court

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:9474 MFA No. 3915 of 2022

¶74

of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belthangady, is modified;

¶75

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.39,17,390/- as against Rs.22,00,910/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶76

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶77

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification;

¶78

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact;

¶79

vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

CPN CT: BHK

Mr. Harsha. N v. Mohammed Ashraf. M

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Harsha. N v. Mohammed Ashraf. M

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottakota Shankar Reddy Vs the Managing Director

Lingarajamma Vs Managing Director

The Divisional Manager Vs T. Pallappa

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri.Avinash N.B. @ Avinash

Smt Siddalakshmamma Vs Sri Gundappa

Sri.Shivashankar Vs Cholamandalam Ms General Ins. Co.Ltd.