Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nanjundappa S/O Ganganna vs Dr.Narayana Reddy on 8 November, 2012

Author: Ravi Malimath

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                             1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

          ON THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

                M.F.A No. 5248/2009 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Nanjundappa,
S/o Ganganna,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at Aralapura Village,
Puruvara Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk.                   ...Appellant

[By Sri.V.Mahesha for
    Sri.A.Hanumanthappa, Advocates]


A N D:

  1.      Dr.Narayana Reddy,
          S/o Muni Reddy,
          Aged about 60 years,
          R/at Kodigenahalli,
          Madhugiri Taluk.

  2.      The Manager,
          The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
          Gandhi Bazar Main Road,
          Basavanagudi,
          Bangalore.               ...Respondents

[By M/s. Lexplexus Advocates for R-2
Notice to R-1 dispensed with vide order dated 25.1.2012]
                              2



      This M.F.A is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 29.5.2009 passed
in MVC No.26/2008 on the file of the Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Madhugiri, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.

      This M.F.A. coming for hearing on this day, the
court delivered the following:-


                     JUDGMENT

The case of the claimant is that on 7.11.2006 at about 4.00 pm., when he was proceeding on the Hero Honda Motor Cycle as a pillion rider to go to Madhugiri, near Shanimahatma temple on Kodigenhalli-Madhugiri Road, the Maruti Suzuki Car bearing registration No. KA.06/P-5940 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. He was treated for the same. On a claim Petition being filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,07,800/- along with interest at 6% pa. from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. Seeking enhancement the present appeal is filed. 3

2) The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows:-

Pain and sufferings                                 Rs. 5,000/-
Medical expenses                                    Rs. 25,000/-

Attendant, conveyance & other incidental charges Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of earning capacity Rs. 48,800/- Loss of earning during laid-up period Rs. 12,000/- Future Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-

Total Rs.1,07,800/-

3) It is the case of the claimant that as on the date of accident, he was doing the work of agricultural coolie, milk vending and sheep rearing and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. No document was produced to establish the rate of his monthly income. However, on examining the records and based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMACHANDRAPPA VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE PRIVATE LIMITED reported in AIR 2011 SC 2951, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to hold the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-. 4

4) The doctor who treated the claimant has stated that the claimant has suffered 20% functional disability to the whole body. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. He was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. The accident took place in the year 2006. For the age group of 31 to 35 years, the multiplier applicable is '16'. Hence, the total loss of future earning works-out as under:-

Loss of future earning:
Rs.4,000 x 12 x 16 x 20%=Rs.1,53,600/-.
5) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-

towards pain and sufferings. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant, it is on the lower side. Accordingly, it is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.20,000/- .

6) Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant, he requires at least six months to recover from the same. Hence, it is appropriate to award another sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.4,000x6) under this head. 5

7) It is noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards disability suffered by the claimant. Therefore, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.

8) Compensation amount awarded under the head of medical expenses is in terms of the medical bills produced by the claimant. Therefore, it does not call for interference and is undisturbed.

9) The amount awarded under the head of 'Attendant charges, conveyance and other incidental expenses, is just and proper and hence, does not call for interference.

10) The compensation now awarded is as follows:-

Pain and sufferings                           Rs. 25,000/-
Medical expenses                              Rs. 25,000/-

Attendant, conveyance & other incidental charges Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,53,600/- Loss of earning during laid-up period Rs. 36,000/- Future Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- 6

Loss of amenities                             Rs. 20,000/-

                            Total             Rs.2,84,600/-


11) Consequently, the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.1,76,800/- (Rs.2,84,600/- less Rs.1,07,800/-) along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the Petition till realization and to be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE KGR*.