N. Jagadish Vs Kiran .S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

N. Jagadish Vs Kiran .S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Claimant's enhancement appeal allowed in part: the Tribunal's award in MVC No.1850/2011 dated 07.07.2014 is enhanced by Rs.1,87,600/-, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit; Respondent No.2 (Reliance General Insurance) directed to deposit the enhanced sum within eight weeks of receipt of copy of the order, on which deposit the appellant may withdraw the entire amount.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal rightly assessed the appellant's whole body disability at 6% as against the 18% disability spoken to by the medical evidence (PW2). +2 more

Court's answer

The Tribunal's finding that the disability in respect of whole body is 6%, arrived at considering the totality of evidence, rests on sound reasoning and this Court is not inclined to disturb it.

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant succeeded in establishing permanent disablement through medical evidence, his failure to file income tax returns for the post-accident period cannot be used to hold that he is not entitled to loss of earnings at all; the proportionate reduction in his earnings should be taken care of.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal ought to have taken the annual income of the appellant as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum (as pleaded by his counsel and supported by Ex.P17 showing gross total income of Rs.2,80,625/- for assessment year 2009-2010) instead of the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month.ratio¶40
Taking annual income as Rs.2,00,000/-, multiplier 15 and 6% whole body disability, loss of future earnings computes to Rs.1,80,000/-; the appellant is entitled to an additional Rs.93,600/- over the Rs.86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head.ratio¶40
Having regard to the nature of injuries, surgeries undergone and extensive treatment taken, the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits for at least six months; loss of income during the laid-up period is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- (50% of Rs.2,00,000/-), entailing an enhancement of Rs.84,000/- over the Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles enhancement appeal (filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act) by the injured claimant against the award of Rs.3,39,615/- in MVC No.1850/2011 by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore. The High Court declined to disturb the Tribunal's assessment of whole body disability at 6% (as against 18% deposed by PW2), holding that finding to rest on sound reasoning. However, it held that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the appellant's proven annual income of Rs.2,00,000/- (income tax returns Ex.P15-P17; Ex.P17 disclosing gross total income of Rs.2,80,625/- for AY 2009-2010) in place of the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month, and further held that non-production of post-accident income tax returns cannot disentitle a medically established permanently disabled claimant to loss of earnings; the proportionate reduction in earnings must be taken care of. Recomputation yielded loss of future earnings of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.2,00,000 X 15 X 6%), loss of income during the laid-up period of Rs.1,00,000/- (50% of annual income for at least six months) and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities in life. Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.1,87,600/- (93,600 + 84,000 + 10,000) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit; Respondent No.2, Reliance General Insurance, directed to deposit within eight weeks.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6574 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

N. JAGADISH, S/O H.V.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.554, UDAYASHANKAR ROAD, 1^ST MAIN, UDAYANAGAR, KRISHNARAJPURA, BANGALORE-560 016.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. DORAI BABU S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

KIRAN S., S/O UPADHYA S.N., Digitally signed by NO.136, 5^TH MAIN, AASEEFA PARVEEN NEW BEL ROAD, Location: HIGH DEVASANDRA, 2^ND STAGE, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 094. KARNATAKA

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE NO.4/3/-1 AND 3/2M, 11^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 20.01.2015)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1850/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Ms.Archana who represents Sri.Dorai Babu learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Sri.Ashok N Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.1850/2011 dated 07.07.2014. This is a claimant's appeal.

On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and became completely and permanently disabled, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,39,615/- as compensation.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

Projecting that he is entitled for a higher sum, this appeal is filed.

Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The appellant underwent three major surgeries. However, he is left with 18% disability in respect of wholebody. Though the appellant produced sufficient proof to that effect, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of wholebody as 6%.

Learned counsel also states that the appellant as a flower decorator was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by the date of accident. The appellant produced sufficient proof to that effect, which includes the evidence of PW3 and the income tax returns i.e,. Ex.P15 to Ex.P17. But without considering the said evidence, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month and awarded meagre sum as compensation under the head loss of future earnings. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

Per contra, the submission that is made by learned

counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant though

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

established his earnings by all the evidence he produced by the date of accident, he failed to produce sufficient proof to show that the earnings diminished after the accident due to the injuries sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month and thus, the award of the Tribunal needs no interference.

Stating that the appellant ought to have submitted sufficient proof that he could not earn the same amount as he was earning prior to the date of accident, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case between Subashchand Jain vs. Ganapathi and Another reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3355.

In the case on hand, the appellant, by all the evidence produced, succeeded in establishing that he was earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by the date of accident. Also, by the evidence of PW2 he established that due to the injuries sustained, he became permanently disabled and the said disablement is permanent in nature in respect of wholebody. Such being the case, the appellant will not be able to work with same vigour and strength as he was working prior

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

to the date of accident. Therefore, the proportionate reduction in his earnings should be taken care of. This Court is of the view that as the appellant succeeded in establishing his disability, through the medical evidence produced, even though he has not filed his income tax returns relating to subsequent period, the said fact cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the appellant is not entitled for loss of earnings at all.

The appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained communited sub trochanteric fracture right and posterior column acetabulum fracture right. He also succeeded in establishing that he underwent right femur interlocking under general anesthesia and acetablum fixation with reconstruction plate and screws under regional anesthesia. He also established that he took extensive treatment by getting admitted into hospital on three different occasions. The evidence of PW2 is that the disability in respect of wholebody is 18%. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of wholebody as 6% considering the totality of evidence produced. This Court is not inclined to disturb the said finding as the said finding is on sound reasoning.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

Coming to the earnings of the appellant as on the date of the accident, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant produced sufficient proof with regard to his earnings as on the date of accident. The income tax returns filed i.e., Ex.P17 discloses that for the assessment year 2009-2010 the appellant had shown his gross total income as Rs.2,80,625/-. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2011. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken annual income of the appellant as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, taking annual income of the appellant as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, applying the appropriate multiplier '15' as rightly done by the Tribunal and taking the disability in respect of wholebody as 6%, loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- X 15 X 6%). The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.86,400/under the said head. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.93,600/( 1,80,000/- - 86,400/-).

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the surgeries underwent and the extensive treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of six months. Therefore, loss of income during laid up period comes to Rs.1,00,000/- (50% of Rs.2,00,000/-). The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/- only under the said head. Therefore, the enhancement will be Rs.84,000/-. Also, the Tribunal did not award any sum as compensation under the head 'loss of amenities in life'. This Court is of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities in life'. Thus, the total sum which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,87,600/- (93,600 + 84,000+10,000). Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Bengaluru through orders

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:7383 MFA No. 6574 of 2014

in MVC No.1850/2011 dated 07.07.2014 is enhanced by Rs.1,87,600/-.

(iv) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

(v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(vi) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57