Karnataka High Court
Kulusumbi Ramjan Pendari vs Kashimsab Rajeli Jamadar on 21 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB
MFA No. 101708 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101708 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KULUSUMBI RAMJAN PENDARI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING & AGRI,
R/O. KELEGERI GALLI, AT: KHANAGAON BK,
POST: KHANAGAON KH, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590013.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KASHIMSAB RAJELI JAMADAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
R/O. AT: KHANAGAON BK, POST: KHANAGAON KH,
by MANJANNA E TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590013.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.27 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
12:32:00 +0530
1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA TOWER, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.2582/2018 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS. 1,93,882/- WITH 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND MAY
BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS. 28,06,118/- WITH
18% INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB
MFA No. 101708 of 2020
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.11.2019 passed in M.V.C. No.2582/2018 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,93,882/- as compensation to the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimant's case are as under:
4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident that took place on 28.11.2018, when he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EZ- -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020 8882 from Kanabargi towards District Hospital, Belagavi as a pillion rider. At about 1.30 p.m., when they reached near Rukmini Nagar, 1st cross on Belagavi-Kanabargi road, at that time the rider of the said motorcycle rode the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden applied break, due to which the motorcycle went into a skid. The claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
5. The claimant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and in support of his oral evidence, he got examined one Sri. S. R. Angadi, who is the doctor, as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 59. For the defence, Ex.R1-insurance policy has been marked. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted total compensation of Rs.1,93,882/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the injuries sustained by the claimant and the amount spent towards medical expenses. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020 The injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature, but, the Tribunal has failed to grant reasonable compensation for such injuries.
a) Secondly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads loss of income during laid up period and loss of future income, are on lower side. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
b) Thirdly, the claimant prior to the accident was working as tailor and agriculture and was earning more than Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on lower side.
c) Fourthly, PW2-Dr. S. R. Angadi, examined the claimant and assessed permanent physical disability to the extent of 15% to the whole body. But, the Tribunal has considered 5% disability, which is on lower side. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant prayed to allow the appeal.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020
7. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal considering the medical evidence as well as the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record has granted reasonable compensation and hence, no grounds are made for seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. As there is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28.11.2018, at about 1.30 p.m. when the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in motorcycle on Kanabargi- Belagavi Road, the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied break, due to which the motorcycle went into a skid and the claimant fell down and sustained severe injuries.
9. Considering the contentions of both the parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020 and reasonable, it is on lower side and it requires to be enhanced appropriately.
11. As per Ex.P8-wound certificate the claimant sustained injuries 1) Displaced fracture of the condylar process of right mandible bone, 2) Un-displaced fracture body of the left mandible bone. As per the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries are grievous in nature. The claimant was treated at Lakeview Hospital, Belagavi, for six days. The injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant are suppressed by the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and PW2, respectively.
12. In this case, the Tribunal has observed that the claimant sustained in all two injuries, in which, one injury is grievous in nature. For one grievous injury, as per settled law, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.40,000/- and for additional fracture, he is entitled for Rs.20,000/-. However, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant is entitled for Rs.60,000/- under the head of 'pain and sufferings'.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020
13. The claimant was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident. As per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1, multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is '15'.
14. Towards 'loss of future income' is considered, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- considering the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2018 and as per the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, the notional income in the absence of any proof of the income of claimant to be taken at Rs.11,750/-per month. The doctor has assessed permanent physical disability at 15%, but the Tribunal has considered disability at 5%. The same is just and reasonable. If the notional income of Rs.11,750/- is calculated with 5% disability, it works out to Rs.1,05,750/- (Rs.11,750x12x15x5%) under the head of 'loss of future income'.
15. Towards 'loss of income during laid up period' the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-, which is on lower 1 2009 ACJ 1298 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020 side. Due to accidental injuries, the claimant has been under the rest for a period of two months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.23,500/- (Rs.11,750 x 2 months) under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.
16. Towards 'medical expenses' the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.79,880/- and Rs.16,000/- towards 'food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges', which are just and reasonable one and no interference is called for in this regard.
17. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Hence, same is awarded at Rs.30,000/-.
18. So far as interest is concerned, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS -V-
VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. Accordingly, the rate of interest at 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020
19. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
HEADS Rs.
Pain and sufferings 60,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period 23,500/-
Food, transport and attendant 16,000/-
charges
Medical expenses 79,880/-
Loss of amenities 30,000/-
Loss of future income 1,05,750/-
Total 3,15,130/-
20. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,15,130/- as against Rs.1,93,882/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a.
d) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
e) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16973-DB MFA No. 101708 of 2020 accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
g) Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
h) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SMM/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37