Claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident injury case. The Court fixed notional income at Rs.8,500 per month, added 40% towards future prospects applying multiplier 16 with 28% whole-body disability, and awarded Rs.20,000 towards loss of amenities. Compensation enhanced by Rs.3,91,000 with 6% interest.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6703 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR N, S/O V. MAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KEMPEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, IJOOR POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S.P RAMESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 05/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Raju S., learned counsel on record for the appellant, who appears physically before this Court. Also, heard Sri K. N. Srinivasa, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2/Insurance Company, who appears through video conference.
awarded a sum of `8,38,800/- as compensation and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed.
15,000/- per month. Though the appellant produced his driving license, yet the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as 5,000/- per month, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also contends that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as `8,500/- per month and at least the said figure should have been considered by theTribunal. Learned counsel also states that the appellant has become totally and completely disabled. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole body as 28%. Even the Tribunal did not add future prospects, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also contends that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.
Tribunal in respect of the whole body, i.e., 28%, is justifiable.
15,000/- per month, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, no substantive proof is produced to that effect. However, this Court agrees with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notional income is required to be taken as 8,500/- per month. The multiplier applied, i.e., 16, is proper. It is also brought on record that the appellant was between the age of group of 31 to 35 years by the date of accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of the actual earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. Thus, loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability is as under:NC: 2024:KHC:41359 MFA No. 6703 of 2021
| Heads | Amount in Rs. |
|---|---|
| Notional monthly income | 8,500-00 |
| Annual income | 1,02,000-00 |
| Add 40% towards future prospects |
1,42,800-00 |
| Apply appropriate multiplier '16' |
22,84,800-00 |
| Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability being 28% |
6,39,744-00 |
2,68,800/- towards loss of future earnings. However, the justifiable sum to which the appellant is entitled is 6,39,744/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of 3,70,944/- (6,39,744/- - 2,68,800/-). Also, having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the disability, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of 20,000/towards loss of amenities. Thus, the total sum which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is `3,90,944/-(3,70,944/- + 20,000/-) rounded to `3,91,000/-. Thus,
NC: 2024:KHC:41359 MFA No. 6703 of 2021
in the light of the forgoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
HDK CT: BHK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced on grounds of higher notional income, future prospects, disability, and loss of amenities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and OthersApplied¶7
(2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Hemanthkumar N
Sri. Nagaraju R
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court