Azim Vs Veershetty and Anr.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09/09/2021, PASSED BY THE MACT AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUMNABAD, IN MVC NO.85/2017 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶24

Though the matter is slated for admission, by

¶25

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.09.2021 in MVC No.85/2017 by the MACTHumnabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that, on

¶29

29.10.2016 the petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP-12/L-0717 and offending tractor bearing No.KA-39/T-4555 came from right side cross road and suddenly took turn to the left side where the petitioner was travelling and there was collision resulting in the petitioner falling down and sustaining injuries. The petitioner was admitted to Government Hospital, Bidar and then he was shifted to a private Hospital, Bidar. He was inpatient for 15 days and claiming that he was aged 35 years at the time of accident, working as agriculturist, claimed adequate compensation from the owner and the insurer of the tractor.

¶30

On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement contending that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 contending that the rider of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and inter alia they also contended that the compensation

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶32

claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in

¶33

law and they denied the age, income of the petitioner.

¶34

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has

¶36

awarded compensation of Rs.3,71,650/- under different

¶37

heads as below:

¶38

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation
1.	Pain and suffering.	Rs.30,000/-
2.	Medical expenses.	Rs.1,37,450/-
3.	Attendant, conveyance charges and nutrition of food etc.,	Rs.2,600/-
4.	Loss of future income.	Rs.2,01,600/-
	Total	Rs.3,71,650/-

¶39

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

¶40

compensation, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

¶43

appellant would submit that the income of the petitioner considered by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- is on the lower side. The petitioner being aged 35 years was an agriculturist and therefore, the income of Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side and as such, reassessment is necessary. He also submits that the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and loss of income for the laid up period is not awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and there is no need for reassessment of compensation.

¶45

A careful perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioner had sustained fracture of left tibia. It is to be noted that, the disability certificate issued by the PW.2 at Ex.P11 would show that the on account of the fracture of upper end of the tibia, the petitioner has the disability of 45% of the affected limb, which results in the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶47

disability of 25% of the whole body. Obviously PW.2 could not have stated about disability to the whole body disability since it relates to functional disability. Accepting the disability of 45% to the left lower limb, the functional disability has to be assessed by this Court. Considering the fact that he was 35 years and an agriculturist the disability of 15% assessed by the Tribunal do not require any enhancement.

¶48

So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, he having not produced any material to show the income, the notional income has to be considered. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,750/- for the year 2016. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 15% x 16 = Rs.2,52,000/- by adopting multiplier of 16 for the age of 35 years.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶50

Consequently, the compensation under the

¶51

head of loss of income during laid up period is assessed at Rs.8,750/- x 3 = Rs.26,250/-.

¶52

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/under the head of pain and suffering and same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶53

The petitioner was inpatient for 20 days in the Hospital, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for food, nourishment, diet, etc.

¶54

The Tribunal has not awarded any

¶55

compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to him under this head.

¶56

The compensation awarded under Medical Expenses do not require any enhancement.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2255 MFA No. 202188 of 2022

¶58

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total

¶59

compensation of Rs.5,05,700/- under the following heads:

¶60

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation
1.	Pain and suffering.	Rs.40,000/-
2.	Medical expenses.	Rs.1,37,450/-
3.	Attendant, conveyance charges and nutrition of food etc.,	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss of future income.	Rs.2,52,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities of life	Rs.30,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.26,250/-
	Total	Rs.5,05,700/-
Less	the amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.3,71,650/-
	Enhancement	Rs.1,34,050/-

¶61

In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed

¶62

in-part. Hence, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,34,050/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶66