Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kiran Kumar. N. B. vs National Insurance Company Ltd., on 29 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1459
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.No.9422/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR N.B.
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF: NO.43, NAYASINGANAHALLI,
AGALAYA POST, S.B.HALLI HOBLI,
K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH , ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. SHAILENDRA. C.G., S/O CHANNAIAH,
MAJOR, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT)
R/O No.59, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PIPELINE WEST,
K.B.NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, NEAR KARNATAKA FLAG,
MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED;02.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2530/2016 ON THE
2
FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant being dissatisfied with the award of compensation by the Tribunal at Rs.6,21,200/- has filed this appeal.
2. The case put-forth by the claimant before the Tribunal was that he was riding his Baja CT -100 Moro cycle bearing regn No.KA-04/EK-100 on 27.02.2016 on the left side of sK.R. Pet - Nagamangal Road, and when he reached near Tiruganahalli, Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, one Indica car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner- claimant. As a result of which, the petitioner - claimant has sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability which requires to be compensated.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition as usual, by denying all the petition averments. 3
4. The insurance coverage for car is however not in dispute.
5. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on 27.02.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the car which hits motor cycle of the petitioner.
6. As far as the disability was concerned, the Tribunal on appreciating the evidence of the Doctor - PW3, came to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered total body disability at 20% . As regards the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.8000/- pm. in the absence of specific evidence regarding his income. The Tribunal adopting the multiplier 17, assessed the loss of future income at Rs.1,63,200/- . It accordingly, awarded the compensation as follows:-
1 Pain and suffering 50,000 2 Loss of income during laid up period 16,000 3 Medical expenses 3,12,000 4 Loss of future income 6,63,200
5. Towards diet and conveyance 20,000 4
6. Loss of amenities 40,000
7. Attendant charges during the 20,000 hospitalization period Total 6,21,200
7. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that having regarding to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering was extremely low. He also contended that the monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal was also on the lower side. He also further contended that the Tribunal has erred in refusing to pay Rs. 44,000/- towards hiring ambulance from his village to Bangalore.
8. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that having regard to the totality of the evidence and facts, the award by the Tribunal was just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.
9. I have considered the submissions of both the counsel and perused the material on record.
10. In assessing the total body disability, though the Doctor has stated that there was total body disability at 17%, 5 the Tribunal has ventured to substitute its opinion and has assessed of to be 10%. This assessment is incorrect. Since there is no basis for the reduction I, therefore, hold that the claimant has suffered total body disability at 17%.
11. As far as monthly income is concerned, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, since the accident is of the year 2016, the notional income prescribed would be Rs.9500/-. Hence would be safe to assess the income of the Injured at Rs.9500/- p.m. as against Rs.8000/- p.m. assessed by the Tribunal. As a consequence, the claimant who has suffered 17% disability to whole body would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,29,460/- ( Rs.1615 x 12 x 17) towards loss of future income.
12. In my view the amount of Rs.50000/- towards pain and suffering is required to be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.
13. Since I have determined the income at Rs.9500/- , having regard to the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for more than 7 months, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs38,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period since was inpatient in the hospital for a period of four months. 6
14. The Tribunal has disallowed a sum of Rs.44,600/- towards hiring ambulance services for coming to Bangalore, which is incorrect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards ambulance charges. The medical expenses this is required to be enhanced from Rs.3,12,000/- to Rs.3,37,000/-.
15. The sums awarded by the Tribunal in all other respects, are just and proper.
16. As a consequence, the claimant will be entitled for following sums towards compensation.
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2 Loss of income during laid up period 38,000/- 3 Medical expenses 3,37,000/-
4 Loss of future income 3,29,460/--
5 Towards diet and conveyance 20,000/-
6. Loss of amenities 40,000/-
7. Attendant charges during the 20,000/-
hospitalization
Total 8,44,460/-
7
The appeal is allowed in part. The claimant-appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,44,460/- as against Rs.6.21,200/- awarded by the tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. towards the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE NM