Karnataka High Court
Shashikant S/O Chandrakant Fugare vs Divisional Controller on 15 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651
MFA No. 201202 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201202 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHASHIKANT S/O CHANDRAKANT FUGARE
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
SERVICE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
M.S.R.T.C. BUDAVAR PETH, SOLAPUR-413003
Digitally signed by
RENUKA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE COURT OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.VI,
VIJAYAPURA AT-VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1067/2016 DATED
05.12.2018 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION
BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651
MFA No. 201202 of 2019
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by the appellant/claimant questioning the compensation determined by the Tribunal. The appellant is aggrieved by denial of compensation under the head of loss of future income. The respondent - Corporation admits its liability. The appeal is purely on quantum.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation. Perused the Records.
3. The appellant has suffered serious injury to his head in a road traffic accident dated 22.05.2016. The appellant to substantiate his disability and gravity of injury, examined himself as PW.1 and examined the doctor -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 MFA No. 201202 of 2019 as PW.2. The Tribunal was not inclined to look into the medical evidence on the ground that PW.2 is not a neurosurgeon and therefore, he is not competent to assess the disability suffered by appellant in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal discarding the medical evidence relating to the disability suffered by the appellant has proceeded to award medical expenses to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. On meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has grossly erred in ignoring the medical evidence let in by the appellant. Though PW.2 is not a neurosurgeon, however, his evidence is found to be too crucial to be ignored. In disability certificate, which is evidenced at Ex.P12, he has clearly opined that because of severe head injury, the appellant has incurred a motor system disability and that has resulted in complete paralysis of left upper limb.
5. Interestingly, the respondent - Corporation except denial, no specific questions are posed to the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 MFA No. 201202 of 2019 doctor, who is examined as PW.2 to counter disability certificate. Insofar as appellant having suffered complete paralysis to his left upper limb, the respondent - Corporation has also not posed any specific questions to the appellant herein, who is examined as PW.1. The Corporation had an opportunity to counter the disability certificate insofar as the paralysis to left upper limb suffered by the appellant on account of grievous injury to the head. This medical evidence let in by appellant has gone unchallenged. Though this Court is not inclined to accept the disability assessed by the doctor examined as PW.2, having regard to the fact that the appellant has suffered complete paralysis to left upper limb, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in not paying compensation under the head of loss of future income. Even one third of the disability determined by the doctor is ignored, the fact that there is complete paralysis of left upper limb, this Court is compelled to assess the disability suffered by the appellant at 20%.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 MFA No. 201202 of 2019
6. In the absence of income proof, this Court relying on the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority would proceed to assess the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.8,750/- per month. Having regard to the fact that accident is of the year 2016, 20% of Rs.8,750 would works out to Rs.1,750/-. The proper multiplier applicable is 18. The compensation payable under the head of loss of future income works out to Rs.3,78,000/-
(Rs.8,750x12x18x20%).
7. Having regard to gravity of injuries, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges and a sum of Rs.26,250/- (Rs.8,750x3) towards loss of income during laid up period. The compensation re-determined by this Court is as under:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 MFA No. 201202 of 2019 Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of future income Rs.3,78,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
4. Medical bills Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Attendant charges R.10,000/-
6. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
7. Loss of income during Rs.26,250/-
laid up period Total Rs.7,94,250/-
8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,69,250/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
c) The Tribunal shall release 50% of the enhanced amount with accrued interest and -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 MFA No. 201202 of 2019 balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT-SW