Partly allowed¶51

Sri M a Papachan v. Sri. Lokesha

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2025MFA/763/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:6009; MFA No. 763 of 2016 (MV-I); decided 11.02.2025 by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. Appellant: M. A. Papachan (adv. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat); respondent No.3: National Insurance Co. Ltd. (adv. Anup Seetharama Rao); respondents 1-2 notice dispensed with. Arises from MVC No.1292/2013, award dated 07.08.2015. Enhancement of motor accident compensation; notional monthly income Rs.10,000/-; 25% permanent disability; multiplier 13; banana chips business; interest 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,18,000/- over the Tribunal's award, carrying interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit; respondent No.3 directed to deposit the enhanced sum within eight weeks, on which the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. ¶51

Sri M a Papachan Vs Sri. Lokesha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

What monthly income should be adopted for the appellant, an agriculturist who also manufactured and sold banana chips, whose exact monthly earnings were not established (Tribunal notionally took Rs.8,000/- p.m.; appellant claimed Rs.45,000/- p.m.)? +4 more

¶39

Court's answer

Monthly income fixed at Rs.10,000/- p.m. in place of the Tribunal's notional Rs.8,000/- p.m.; the Court recorded that the appellant proved 65 days' inpatient treatment across five hospital admissions and his dual occupation (agriculture and banana chips business), but did not prove exact monthly earnings.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Loss of earnings during the laid-up period recomputed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 10 months, the 10-month period being endorsed); enhancement of Rs.20,000/- over the Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

Key takeaways

Loss of future earnings recomputed at Rs.3,90,000/- applying the Tribunal-endorsed 25% permanent disability with multiplier 13 to the notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m.; enhancement of Rs.78,000/- over the Rs.3,12,000/- awarded.ratio¶45
Compensation under 'pain and suffering' enhanced to Rs.80,000/- (from Rs.60,000/-), an increase of Rs.20,000/-, considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (MV-I) under S.173(1) MV Act against the award dated 07.08.2015 in MVC No.1292/2013 (MACT, Mangalore) granting Rs.9,54,400/- to a claimant who sustained a punctured wound on the right eyebrow, open fracture of the shaft of the right tibia and fibula and a cut lacerated wound on the second toe; the claimant was an agriculturist who also ran a banana chips manufacturing and selling business, hospitalised 65 days as inpatient over five admissions, with permanent disability of 25%. His exact monthly earnings were unproved, so the High Court raised the notional income from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. Endorsing the Tribunal's 10-month laid-up period and 25% disability, the Court recomputed loss of earnings (Rs.1,00,000/-) and loss of future earnings (Rs.3,90,000/- = Rs.10,000 x 12 x 13 x 25%), raised pain and suffering to Rs.80,000/-, left all other heads (including the disputed Rs.25,000/- future medical expenses) undisturbed, and enhanced compensation by Rs.1,18,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.; respondent No.3 (insurer) to deposit within eight weeks.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. A. PAPACHAN, AGED 48 YAERS, S/O M.V. ANTHONY, R/AT KATTE MAJALU HOUSE, THOTATHADI VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK,D.K.-574 228.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. LOKESHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O. SHEENAPPA GOWDA, R/AT UMBAJE HOUSE, NERIYA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.- 574 228.

¶13

SRI. NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. KARIYAPPA GOWDA, R/AT DUGGALA ALEKI HOUSE, KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PERLAMPADY, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.- 574 212.

¶14

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICER, 1^ST FLOOR, SHRI KSHETRA DARMASTHALA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR-574201. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 30.07.2019)

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1292/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Pundikai Ishwar Bhat, learned counsel for

¶23

the appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also heard Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 who appears through video conference.

¶24

The claimant in MVC No.1292/2013 which stood pending before the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore and was disposed of through order dated 07.08.2015 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶26

As against the claim for Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.9,54,400/- as compensation.

¶27

Arguing on merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2013. The appellant became totally and completely disabled. The appellant took extensive treatment as inpatient by getting admitted into hospital on 5 different occasions. However, the appellant could not attain normality. Learned counsel also states that the appellant besides attending the agricultural operations at his fields was also doing business of manufacturing and selling banana chips. He was earning huge sum of Rs.45,000/- p.m. by the date of accident. Though sufficient material was produced before the Tribunal regarding the occupation and earnings of the appellant by the date of accident, the Tribunal took the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.8,000/- p.m. and awarded very

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶29

meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal did not award sufficient sum under any head and therefore, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Per contra the submission that is made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the appellant did not incur any sum towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal without any basis awarded Rs.25,000/towards future medical expenses. Learned counsel further submits that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is excessive and thus the appeal does not survive.

¶31

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.9,54,400/- as compensation divided under following heads:

¶32

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.60,000
2	Loss of amenities	Rs.30,000
3	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.80,000

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶35

4	Loss of future earnings	Rs.3,12,000
5	Medical expenses	Rs.3,64,000
6	Future medical expenses	Rs.25,000
7	Conveyance	Rs.58,400
8	Attendant and Misc. Expenses	Rs.25,000
	Total	Rs.9,54,400

¶36

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained

¶37

punctured wound on right eye brow, open fracture of shaft of right tibia and fibula and cut lacerated would on the second toe. The appellant by all the evidence produced succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 65 days by getting admitted into hospital on 5 different occasions. The appellant also succeeded in establishing that he was an agriculturist by profession and was also running business in manufacturing and selling banana chips. Ex.P14, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 throws light on the occupation of the appellant, besides Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 RTC extracts. Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 bank statements reveals the financial transaction of the

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶39

appellant. However, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellant failed to establish his exact earnings per month by the date of accident either through business or through agriculture. However, having considered the occupation of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.10,000/- p.m.

¶40

The Tribunal rightly held that the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings for a period of 10 months. Therefore, the compensation for loss of earnings for a period of 10 months comes to Rs.1,00,000/(Rs.10,000/- X 10). The Tribunal however, awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- only under the said head. Therefore, the enhancement will be Rs.20,000/(Rs.1,00,000-

¶41

Rs.80,000).

¶42

Coming to the loss of future earnings, the Tribunal having rightly assessed the percentage of disability which is permanent in nature as 25%, awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- under the head loss of future

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶45

earnings. However, taking the notional income as Rs.10,000/- p.m., the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.3,90,000/- (Rs.10,000X12X13X25%). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- only under the said head. Thus the enhancement will be Rs.78,000/- (Rs.3,90,000Rs.3,12,000).

¶46

Also having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is required to be awarded under the head pain and suffering is Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- only under the said head. Thus the enhancement will be Rs.20,000/(Rs.80,000-Rs.60,000).

¶47

The compensation that is granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is justifiable and therefore, needs no interference. Thus the compensation which is required to be enhanced is Rs.1,18,000/- (Rs.78,000+ Rs.20,000+Rs.20,000). Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6009 MFA No. 763 of 2016

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore through orders in MVC No.1292/2013 dated 07.08.2015 is enhanced by Rs.1,18,000/-.

¶52

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶53

(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶56

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

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
What monthly income should be adopted for the appellant, an agriculturist who also manufactured and sold banana chips, whose exact monthly earnings were not established (Tribunal notionally took Rs.8,000/- p.m.; appellant claimed Rs.45,000/- p.m.)?medium confidence¶39
The court held
Monthly income fixed at Rs.10,000/- p.m. in place of the Tribunal's notional Rs.8,000/- p.m.; the Court recorded that the appellant proved 65 days' inpatient treatment across five hospital admissions and his dual occupation (agriculture and banana chips business), but did not prove exact monthly earnings.ratio¶39
2.
Was the compensation for loss of income during the laid-up period adequate?medium confidence¶40
The court held
Loss of earnings during the laid-up period recomputed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 10 months, the 10-month period being endorsed); enhancement of Rs.20,000/- over the Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.ratio¶40
3.
Was the compensation for loss of future earnings adequate, given the permanent disability assessed at 25%?medium confidence¶42
The court held
Loss of future earnings recomputed at Rs.3,90,000/- applying the Tribunal-endorsed 25% permanent disability with multiplier 13 to the notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m.; enhancement of Rs.78,000/- over the Rs.3,12,000/- awarded.ratio¶45
4.
Was the compensation awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' adequate?medium confidence¶46
The court held
Compensation under 'pain and suffering' enhanced to Rs.80,000/- (from Rs.60,000/-), an increase of Rs.20,000/-, considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken.ratio¶46
5.
Did the amounts under the remaining heads, including the future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- contested by respondent No.3, require interference?medium confidence¶47
The court held
Compensation under all other heads held justifiable and left undisturbed; aggregate enhancement fixed at Rs.1,18,000/- (Rs.78,000 + Rs.20,000 + Rs.20,000).ratio¶47

Sri M a Papachan v. Sri. Lokesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M a Papachan v. Sri. Lokesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwini G a Vs Dhanalakshmi

The Head Mistress Vs Sri Raju N

Smt B S Meghana Vs Sri Vinay M P

Smt. Gayathri B.P Vs Sri. Mali Suresh

Smt Arpita @ Keerti Jagadeesh Ramadurg @ Arpitha H.N. Vs Sri Jagadish @ Jagadish S Ramadurga

Smt. G S Rekha Vs Smt. Manjunatha Mudhe Gowdru