Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri. Raghavendra S/O Premanathasa ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB
MFA No. 104132 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104132 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100049 OF 2018 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 104132/2017
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LEA COMPLEX, I FLOOR,
NEAR CORPORATION OFFICE, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED THORUGH
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK AND
SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. PREMANATHASA KATHARE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
YASHAVANT OCC: PARTNER OF
NARAYANKAR
M/S. K.C. KATHARE AND SONS BAR,
R/O: MAHINDRAKAR CHAWL, LINE BAZAR,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580001.
Digitally
signed by 2. CHANDRASHEKHAR
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR S/O SOMESHEKAR HALMATH,
Date: AGED: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVE CUM OWNER,
2023.12.13
13:29:45 R/O SHEELAVANTAR ONI, DHARWAD,
+0530
DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
BY SRI G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB
MFA No. 104132 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28-03-2017 IN MVC. NO. 605/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AND
ADDITIONAL MACT., DHARWAD.
IN MFA CROSS OBJ. NO. 100049/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. PREMANATHSA KATHARE,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: PARTNER OF
M/S K.C. KATHARE AND SONS BAR,
R/O: MAHENDRAKAR CHAWL,
LINE BAZAAR, DHARWAD-580001.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SMT V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LEA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR CORPORATION OFFICE,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. SOMESHEKAR HALMATH,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER,
R/O: SHEELAVANTAR ONI,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PREETI SHASHANK AND
SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB
MFA No. 104132 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING
TO AWARD HIGHER COMPENSATION AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C
NO.605/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND C.J.M AND ADDITIONAL MACT., DHARWAD.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR
FINAL ORDERS, THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
Both, the appeal and the cross-objections, are arising out of common judgment and award dated 28th March, 2017 passed in MVC No.605 of 2003 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.
3. United India Insurance Company has preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.104132 of 2017 challenging the impugned judgment and award on liability as well as quantum of compensation; whereas the claimants have preferred MFA Crob No.100049 of 2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal and cross-objections are referred to as per their status and rank before the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts of the claim petition are as follows:
On 16.09.2002 at about 12.00 p.m., the petitioner, after attending his work, was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-25/K-2743 from Belligatti towards Mansur and when the motorcycle came near Managundi Dharwad Road, the rider of the motor cycle rode the motorcycle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and since there was a ditch on the road, the petitioner fall on the edge of the road. Due to sudden fall the edge of the road came into contact with his head and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries over head and all over the body. The rider of the motorcycle fled the scene. Subsequently, the brother of the petitioner came to know about the accident in the late night and thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to Shakuntala Memorial Hospital, Hubli and the petitioner was treated in the said hospital from the date of accident till 18th October, 2002. It is contended that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 accident and his marriage was fixed prior to the date of accident. Due to the impact of said accident, he has suffered bodily disfigurement and unable to walk and work with his hands and became paralysed. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Kathare & Sons retail wine shop. Owing to the impact of said accident, he suffered loss in the business, he is unable to work and respondent No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle and hence are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and on all these grounds preferred claim petition seeking compensation.
6. Pursuant to notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. The respondent No.1 has denied the allegations made in the claim petition so also the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is contended that the accident occurred due to fault of the petitioner himself and it is self-inflicted injury and on all these grounds sought to dismiss the claim petition.
7. The respondent No.2 has also denied the allegations and also contended that the compensation claimed is highly -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 excessive and on all these grounds sought to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries as shown in the injury certificate, while Respondent No.1 was riding Hero Honda bearing Reg. No. KA-25/K-2743 in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly due to a ditch on the road the pillion rider i.e., Petitioner suddenly fell on the edge of the road on 16-09-2002 at about 24 hours on Managundi to Dharwad road ?
2. Whether the Respondents prove that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda bearing No. KA-25/K-2743 by the Petitioner himself, hence they are not liable to pay compensation ?
3. What Order or Award?
9. In order prove his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and examined Neurosurgeon as PW2 and other two witnesses as PWs3 and 4 and, in all, got marked, 228 -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 documents as Exhibits P1 to P228. The respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and Senior Assistant of Respondent No.2 was examined as RW2 and Dr. Mithen Sattur was examined as RW3 and got marked 10 documents as Exhibits R1 to R10.
10. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has answered the issues as under:
Issue No. 1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2 : In the Negative.
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
11. In view of the finding given to the Issues, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,79,398/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred appeal questioning its liability and also the quantum of compensation. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the Cross-Objections seeking enhancement in compensation.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability against the Insurance Company, through the Insurance Company has proved that first respondent has suffered injuries when he was riding the insured motorcycle and was in an intoxicated state and accordingly, the award of Tribunal requires to be set aside. The Tribunal failed to notice the facts narrated in the First Information Report that immediately after the accident, owner of the vehicle stated before the police that the first respondent suffered injuries when he was riding the insured motorcycle and he was also proceeding as pillion rider at the time of accident. The Tribunal, without considering this crucial aspect, fixed the liability against the appellant. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant had filed MFA No.8215 of 2007 challenging the order of the Tribunal. Insurance Company filed appeal contending that the claimant himself got injured in the accident and hence is not liable to pay the compensation. The First Information Report clearly shows the same. After hearing the -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 matter, this Court remanded the matter to examine the owner of the vehicle and to lead evidence on quantum also. After remanding the matter, the appellant had examined owner of the vehicle as RW1, office of the Insurance Company as RW1 and Dr. M. Sattur as RW3 to assess as to the disability of the claimant. the Appellant-Insurance has produced the criminal case records as Exhibits R2 to R9 to prove that the claimant was riding the motorcycle and was in an inebriated state. The owner of the vehicle deposed that the accident has occurred when the first claimant was riding the motorcycle. The owner is acquitted in the criminal proceedings which itself shows that the police have wrongly charge sheeted the owner of the vehicle only to help the first respondent to get compensation from the Insurance. The Tribunal, without considering the order of the JMFC, fixed liability against the Insurance company by observing that the owner was charge sheeted by the police, though he was acquitted subsequently. The Tribunal has not applied its mind while fixing the liability against the Insurance Company. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation under the head loss of future earnings by considering the disability at 56%.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 Further, the compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities, pain and suffering and miscellaneous expenses are also on the higher side and same requires modification in this appeal. On all these grounds sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
15. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submits that though the Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to the compensation, but the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation in accordance with law and facts and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the cross-objector was treated by Neurosurgeon Dr. Shivayogi Baligar who has stated that due to the grievous injury to the brain, the petitioner is suffering from residual disability and still remaining in the same condition, even after best treatment. It is stated that the claimant is crippled beyond repair. Due the accident in question, the marriage of the claimant was cancelled and his family life is ruined and he is not in a position to undertake any responsible work. Considering evidence of Doctor who has treated the claimant as also the evidence of Neurosurgeon, so also, taking into account
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 that the claimant is suffering from residual disability which is still remaining even after the best treatment and he cannot be put back to the stage, earlier to the accident. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 70% which has affected his earning capacity and also future prospects. On all these grounds sought for enhancement of compensation.
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:
1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as to liability and also as to quantum of compensation?
2. Whether the cross-objector is entitled for enhancement in compensation?
3. What order or award?
17. Our answer for the above points is as under:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: partly in the affirmative; Point No.3: as per final order.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 Regarding Point No.1:
18. We have carefully examined the material placed before this Court. On 16.09.2002 at about 12.00 p.m., the petitioner, after attending his work, was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-25/K-2743 from Belligatti towards Mansur and when the motorcycle came near Managundi Dharwad Road, the rider of the motor cycle rode the motorcycle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and since there was a ditch on the road, the petitioner fall on the edge of the road. Due to sudden, his head came in contact with the edge of the road and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries over head and all over the body. The rider of the motorcycle fled the spot. Brother of the petitioner came to know about the accident in the late night and thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to Shakuntala Memorial Hospital, Hubli wherein the petitioner was treated from the date of accident till 18th October, 2002. It is contended that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to accident and his marriage was fixed prior to the date of accident. Due to the impact of said accident, he has suffered bodily disfigurement and unable to walk and work with his hands and has became paralysed. The
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 petitioner is a partner of M/s. Kathare & Sons retail wine shop. Owing to the impact of said accident, he suffered loss in the business, he is unable to work. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle and hence are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.6,79,398/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
19. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-United India Insurance Company and also the cross- objector has preferred the appeal before this Court in MFA No.8215 of 2007 connected with MFA No.20462 of 2008. This Court, by judgment dated 13th July, 2012, set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the parties to adduce further evidence, both on the point of negligence and quantum of compensation. Thereby both the parties have adduced additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the evidenced adduced by both the parties, has
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 passed the impugned judgment and award dated 28th March, 2017.
20. With regard to negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is concerned, the petitioner is examined as PW1. he has reiterated the averments made in the petition. PW2-Shivayogi Baligar, Neuro Surgeon has deposed as to the injuries and disability of the petitioner. PW3-Shrinivas Khatare who is cited as CW6 in the charge sheet and who is the brother of the petitioner, has deposed in his evidence that he was working as Partner in M/s. Kathare & Sons retail wine shop. He has also deposed as to the accident. PW4-Shivaji Madiwalappa Mygadi has also deposed regarding the accident. Apart from this oral evidence, the petitioners have also produced the documents. A perusal of documentary evidence makes it clear that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Chandrashekar Halmath, Dharwad Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2002 against the rider of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/K-2743 against Raghavendra Premanathasa Kathare for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the Court. Thereafter,
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 police have visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of panchas as per Exhibit P3, obtained wound certificate and on thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Chandarshekar Halmath for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Exhibit P5-the certified copy of MLC reveals that the injured- Raghavendra P. Kathare was admitted to the hospital with the history of Road traffic accident followed by loss of conscious. During the cross-examination of PWs1 to 4, the respondents have not questioned as to the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. RW1-Chandrashekar Halmath, who was the rider of motorcycle, has deposed in his evidence that on the date of accident, the accused was riding motorcycle, but the police have submitted false charge sheet against him. During his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that Police submitted charge sheet against him. Further, he has denied that the petitioner has lost his conscious after the accident. This evidence is contrary to the contents of Exhibit P5-MLC prepared by the Medical Officer who has examined the injured. RW2-Rajendra Sawkar working as Senior Assistant in the
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 appellant-Insurance Company has deposed in his evidence that the rider of motorcycle has consumed alcohol at the time of accident and the same is admitted by PW3. In his cross- examination, he has clearly admitted that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of accident and the same was standing in the name of respondent No.1. He has also admitted as to the charge sheet submitted against R1 by the Police. But he has not deposed anything against the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. The respondents have produced Exhibit R7 the certified copy of judgment passed in CC No.95 of 2003, which reveals that the accused-Chanrashekar Halmath is acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
21. A careful examination of entire evidence of both the parties, is clear that the Insurance Company has taken defence that the petitioner was the rider of the vehicle at the time of accident and he was in an intoxicated state. In this regard, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused-Chandrashekar Halmath for
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer has not been challenged by the respondents. Even before the Tribunal also, they have not questioned as to the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. The respondents have not made any accusation against the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Soon after the accident when the petitioner was admitted to the Hospital with the history of road traffic accident, it is evident from Exhibit P5- MLC register that the petitioner was not having conscious and there is no reference as to the consumption of alcohol. If really, the petitioner had consumed alcohol at the time of accident, in order to attract Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 to 204 of Motor Vehicles Act. But in the case on hand, first of all, the Investigating Officer has not made any accusation against the petitioner as to the consumption of alcohol. The respondents have failed to
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 establish their case to prove the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner. Hence, the arguments advanced on behalf of the insurance company cannot be accepted.
22. It is settled principle of law that mere acquittal of the accused in a criminal case is not a ground to reject the claim petition. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence placed before it and has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. On re-appreciation, re-examination and re- consideration of the evidence on record, we do not find any legal infirmities/illegalities in the impugned judgment and award as to the liability of the insurance company. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
23. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under:
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB
MFA No. 104132 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
Sl.No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering 60,000.00
2. Loss of income during the laid-up 18,000.00
period
3. Medical expenses 1,08,678.00
4. Loss of future income 3,42,720.00
5. Loss of amenities 1,00,000.00
6. Attendant charges, conveyance, food 50,000.00
and nourishment
Total 6,79,398.00
24. As regards loss of future income is concerned, the Tribunal, at paragraphs 21 to 24, has observed thus:
"21. Loss of future income: It is obvious from the records placed before the Court that the Petitioner had sustained haemorrhagic areas involving the bilateral temporal regions, left internal capsule, lentiform nucleus and cerebral peduncle with surrounding edema/ areas of contusion, left caudate nucleus and splenium of corpus callosum are also involved. Hence, this Tribunal is heavily burdened with the responsibility of awarding the compensation under this head. P.W.1 deposed that due to the accidental injuries he became paralysed and he is unable to speak properly and walk properly and think properly and bodily disfigurement on right side angle has taken place. Hence it is clearly established from the records on hand such as scan reports, that he was grievously injured in the said accident and he is suffering from residual disability still remaining even after best treatment. Now, the court has to award compensation under the head of loss of future earning. With regard to
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 this P.W.2 Shivayogi Baligar, Neurosurgeon has stated that due to the grievous injury to the brain the Petitioner is constrained to living in the said situation and his memory is less and unable to speak properly and he is suffering from right side paralysis of his body and he cannot walk properly and also he cannot discharge his day to day activities properly. He has admitted that around the age of Petitioner i.e., 22 years if a person's suffers any type of injury, recovery will be faster, so also Petitioner has also improved but he has not improved fully due to he has got hemiplegia i.e., right side paralysis which will effect more on out side of the body and he also admitted that hemiplegia is partially improved but it has given right sided paralysis throughout life. P.W.2 Neurosurgeon has opined that the Petitioner is having permanent physical disability of 70%.
22. On the other hand, the Respondents examined the Dr. Mithun Sattur as R.W.3, he deposed that he is working as Assistant Professor in Neurosurgery since 2007, since he was directed to assess the extent of disability with respect to Raghvendra Kathare vide letter No. 1037/2013 dated 25-4- 2013 issued by this court and he has assessed the disability of the Petitioner in respect of his neurological deficits on 2-5- 2013 at KIMS, Hubli as follows:
(a) Right hemiparasis 50%
(b) Right upper limb sensory lorry 5%
(c) Right WMN facial paresis 10%
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 Consequently the neurological disability amounts to 56% and he has issued the certificate at Ex.R10.
23. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.3 and documents on hand that the Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and caused permanent disability , with this disability definitely he will not be in a position to attend his regular work and he has sustained grievous injuries and he is suffering from residual disability that is still remaining even after best treatment, now the court has to award compensation for loss of future earning.
24. After carefully considering the records on hand and the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.3, I hold that the Petitioner is suffering from at least 56% disability to the whole body. The Petitioner has stated that he was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. As per the medical records, it shows that the age of the Petitioner is shown as 26 years. Hence, I hold that as on the date of the accident he was aged about 26 years. If the multiplier theory is applied as per Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation case and if the age of the Petitioner is considered to be 26 years and the multiplier applicable is 17 and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and as I have already discussed that the Petitioner was earning Rs.3,000/- per month to maintain himself and his family. If that is the case the future loss of income works out as under.
Rs. 3000/- X 12 X 17 X 56% /100 = Rs.3,42,720/-
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018 Hence the Petitioner is awarded the said amount for loss of future earnings."
25. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month which is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the chart issued, for the accidents of the year 2002, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.3,250/- per month and the same is taken in this case also. The age of the petitioner is 26 years and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 17 and the same is properly applied by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the loss of future income comes to Rs.3,71,280/- (Rs.3,250/- x 12 x 17 x 56%).
26. With regard to loss of amenities, conveyance charges, food and nourishment is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment as an inpatient, it is just and proper to award the compensation as under:
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB
MFA No. 104132 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
Sl.No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering 80,000.00
2. Loss of income during the laid-up 30,000.00
period
3. Medical expenses 1,08,678.00
4. Loss of future income 3,71,280.00
5. Loss of amenities 1,25,000.00
6. Attendant charges, conveyance, food 70,000.00
and nourishment
Total 7,84,958.00
Regarding Point No.3:
27. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal No.104132 of 2017 preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company dismissed:
2. MFA Cross Objections No.100049 of 2018 preferred by the claimant is allowed in part;
3. Judgment and award dated 28th March, 2017 passed in MVC No.605 of 2003 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Dharwad is modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,85,958/- in lieu of Rs.6,79,398/- awarded by the Tribunal;
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11253-DB MFA No. 104132 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100049 of 2018
4. Enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation;
5. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally be liable to pay the compensation;
6. Amount in deposit if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith for onward disbursement to the claimants;
7. Registry to draw award accordingly.
8. Send back the Trial court records with copy of this judgment and award.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31