Partly allowed

Zakariya @ Zacharia v. the Child Welfare Development

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2024MFA/9426/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award in a motor accident claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court enhanced the compensation by awarding amounts for loss of future income due to disability and loss of income during the laid-up period, while upholding other heads. The appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,92,350/- to Rs.3,88,370/- with interest at 6% p.a.

Zakariya @ Zacharia Vs the Child Welfare Development — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9426 OF 2017

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ZAKARIYA @ ZACHARIA S/O HAMEED R/O BEDRABETTU HOUSE INDABETU, BANGADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O DHOOMAPPA COMPOUND BAJAL POST, PADEEL, MANGALURU TLAUK - 575001

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CDPO TLAUK, PANCHAYTH BUILDING, B.C. ROAD, BANTWAL TALUK - 574219.

¶15

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCEDEPARTMENT MOTOR BRANCH BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA .,AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED25.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1640/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶21

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Aggrieved by the award dated 25.10.2014, passed in MVC No.1640/2012, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC At Mangaluru D.K., the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶25

The claim petition was filed seeking

¶26

compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the

¶27

injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that he had sustained (i) lacerated

¶28

wound 5 cm. over the left leg proximal 1/3rd of leg (ii) deformity of the leg (iii) communited fracture of proximal 3rd of tibia bone, and according to the doctor the injuries

¶29

are grievous in nature. According to the claimant he was working as Musliyar in Majeed and earning an amount of Rs.7,250/- p.m. As per the Doctor the claimant had sustained 33% disability to the particular leg. The court

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶31

below had considered the certificate granted by the doctor and was of the view that the same is genuine but did not consider the same while awarding compensation towards loss of future earning and granted compensation as per the table given below:

¶32

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	50,000/-
2.	Attendant, Food, & extra nourishment	:	Rs.	8,700/-
3.	Loss of Amenities & Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	1,33,650/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,92,350/-

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶34

submits that the claimant had sustained 33% disability and the disability has been considered by the court below but had not granted any amount towards loss of future income due to disability. It is submitted that under the head of loss of income during laid up period no amounts were granted. It is submitted that under the head of attendant, conveyance and nourishment the court below had granted an amount of Rs.8,700/- only which is not

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶37

reasonable and the compensation granted under various heads are also not reasonable.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶39

appearing for the respondent submits that the court below had rightly not granted compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability as there was no evidence to show that the claimant lost his job. Further he submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under all other heads are just and reasonable compensation and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. First coming to the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering the court below had granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is reasonable and no interference is called for. Coming to the compensation granted under the

¶41

head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance the

¶42

claimant was in hospital for 14 days, considering the same

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶44

an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of amenities and medical expenses the court below had granted an amount of Rs.1,33,650/- which is reasonable and no interference is called for. Coming to the loss of income due to disability the court below while granting compensation towards loss of amenities had considered the certificate and held that the same is genuine. However

¶45

on the ground that there is no evidence to show that there is no loss of future income had not granted compensation the said finding of the court below is not correct. When

¶46

the court below had accepted the claimant had sustained disability it would have an impact on his future earning ought to have taken the same. Hence as there is 33% disability to the leg this Court is taking 11% disability to the whole body and as there is no evidence with regard to the income, considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the accident has occurred in the year 2012, this Court is taking the income at Rs.7,000/- and taking the disability at 11% to the whole-body, the claimant is entitled for an

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶48

amount of Rs.1,66,320/- (Rs.7,000 x 12 x 18 x 11%) towards loss of income due to disability . Considering laid up for two months an amount of Rs.14,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.

¶49

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶50

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶51

compensation under the following heads:

¶52

Description		By Tribunal	By this Court
Pain and Sufferings	Rs.	50,000/-	50,000/-
Attendant, Food, & extra nourishment	Rs.	8,700/-	15,000/-
Loss of Amenities	Rs.	50,000/-	50,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.	83,650/-	83,650/-
Loss of income future income	Rs.	0	1,66,320/-
Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.	0	14,000/-
Legal Expenses	Rs.	0	10,000/-

¶53

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶56

Total	Rs.	1,92,350/- 3,88,970/-
Enhancement		Rs.1,96,620/-

¶57

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,

¶58

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,92,350/to Rs.3,88,370/-.

¶59

i) This court by order dated 20.11.2023, has condoned the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant / claimant will not be entitled for interest for 309 days delay. In view of the same, the claimant is not entitled for interest for 309 days.

¶60

ii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶61

iii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8173 MFA No. 9426 of 2017

¶63

judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶64

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶65

v) No costs.

¶66

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶67

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

¶69

SD/JUDGE

Zakariya @ Zacharia v. the Child Welfare Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakariya @ Zacharia v. the Child Welfare Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna G Vs Mahesh R v

Mr Adarsh Patil B S Vs Mrs Manasa Lekha

D Sukumar Vs R Gayathri @ Gayathri Devi.R.

Smt Trishu M Reddy Vs Sri Vikrama Reddy

Deepa Darshan H P Vs Smt Shruthi H K

Sri. Poornachandra. K. N. Vs Smt. Mamatha. Y