Rudragouda S/O Shivanand Holehadagali Vs the Executive Engineer

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS. 2,37,868/- TO RS.5,60,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, AT DHARWAD IN MVC NO.310/2013 DATED 24.01.2015, 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 ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed in MVC No.310/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (for short ‘ the Tribunal ).

¶24

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶25

On 02.02.2013, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/L-366 near Karishma Hotel, P.B. Road. At that time, the driver of a Tata-Sumo Government Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/M-6171 came from the Hubli direction in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and incurred a huge medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶29

The respondents filed a separate statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶30

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶31

To substantiate his case, the petitioner was examined as PW-1, the Doctor was examined as PW-2 and marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to P21. Conversely, the respondents did not lead either oral or documentary evidence.

¶32

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 24.02.2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,37,868/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

deposit of the award amount and directed the respondent

¶37

No.2/ KGID to deposit the award amount within 30 days.

¶38

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, has filed this appeal.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred in 2013, and the tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal should have considered the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal state Services Authority, which prescribes Rs.7,000/- per month for the accident having occurred in 2013. Hence, he also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not produced any income proof and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income at Rs.6,000/-. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Perused the records and considered the

¶45

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation .

¶47

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a chargesheet at EX.P-3, to prove that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Regarding the Quantum:

¶52

To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW-2, who deposed that he had examined the petitioner both clinically and radiologically, and issued a disability certificate marked as Ex.P18, wherein, the Doctor has opined and assessed that the petitioner has suffered a disability regarding the right lower limb at 28.5%. However, he did not assess the permanent disability to the whole body. The Tribunal assessed the disability of the petitioner at 9%, which is just and proper. The petitioner, to substantiate his income, has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, this Court has taken Rs.7,000/- as the monthly income, as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of 2013. The petitioner is aged about 38 years old of age at the time of the accident, and the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age group is 15.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Thus, considering the evidence of PW-2, the

¶56

Doctor, and medical records, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads:

¶57

Sl.	Heads of	Compensation a	warded in Rs.
No.	compensation	By the Tribunal	By this Court
1	Pain and suffering	25,000/-	40,000/-
2	Loss ofamenities	20,000/-	30,000/-
3	Loss of income during laid-up period	6,000/-	21,000/- (7,000/- x 3)
4	Attendant’s charges, Extra diet, and conveyance	7,000/-	15,000/-
5	Medicalexpenses	82,668/-	82,668/-
6	Loss of future income	97,200/-	1,13,400/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x‘15’x 9%)
	Total :	2,37,868/-	3,02,068/-
	Compensation	enhanced by:	64,200/-

¶58

Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,02,068/- as against Rs.2,37,868/awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.64,200/-. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly.

¶59

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 100461 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶65

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed in MVC No.310/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Dharwad, is modified.

¶66

(iii) The petitioner entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,02,068/- as against Rs.2,37,868/- awarded by the tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.64,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

¶67

(iv) The respondent No.2/ KGID- Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶68