Karnataka High Court
Ramalingappa S/O Basanna vs Shivarao S/O Bheemanna on 5 December, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA,
ON THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30284 OF 2008 (MV)
BETWEEN
Ramalingappa S/o Basanna,
Aged 35 years,
Occ: Agriculture & Pvt. Contractor,
R/o Kowtalam, Tq. Adoni
Dist. Kurnoor, now at
Kumbar Oni, Raichur - 584 101. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri Veeranagouda, Advocate)
AND
1. Shivarao S/o Bheemanna,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o Kowtal, Tq. Manvi,
Dist. Raichur.
2. B.Gururaj S/o Venkayya,
Age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kowtal, Tq. Manvi,
Dist. Raichur.
3. Royal Sundarm Alliance
2
Insurance Com.Ltd.,
Sundarm Towers No. 45, 46,
Whites Road, Chennai.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Sudarshan, Adv for R-3;
R-1 Notice dispensed
R-2 Served unrepresented)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.05.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.455/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement as well as the questioning 25% negligence attributed to him.
2. The case made out is that when he was riding a motorcycle, a lorry came from the opposite side and dashed against him. He sustained injuries. On the question 3 of liability it was held that the claimant did not possess a driving licence to drive the vehicle. Hence his negligence was held at 25% and the negligence of the driver of the lorry held at 75%. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and examining the records, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Negligence attributed at 25% to the claimant is sustained. The finding recorded is in tune with the facts and evidence. No interference is called for.
3. So far as enhancement is concerned, the disability has held at 50%. It is proper and accepted. He is said to be an agriculturist and a contractor and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal held his income at Rs.4,500/-. The same is inappropriate. Following the judgement reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2951 in the case of Ramchandrappa vs. Manager Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd., it would be proper to hold the income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/- per month, since he is neither a coolie nor a daily wage 4 worker. He was aged 34 years as on the date of accident. The multiplier held by Tribunal at 17 which is incorrect. It should be read as 16. Hence the loss of income due to disability is as follows;
Rs.5,500 x 12 x 16 x 50% = Rs.5,28,000/- An amount of Rs.32,000/- was awarded towards injuries and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. In view of the injuries sustained, both put together it is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-. The amount towards medical reimbursement is proper and undisturbed. He was in hospital for 11 days. Hence the amount awarded towards nourishment, food and attendants, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted. He requires atleast 6 months to recover from the injuries. Therefore, a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 6) is awarded under loss of income during the period of treatment. No amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded on this head.
Hence in all claimant is entitled to compensation as under;
5
1) Loss of income due to Rs. 5,28,000/- disability
2) Injuries, pain & suffering Rs. 50,000/-
3) Medical reimbursement Rs. 48,072/-
4) Nourishment, food and Rs. 15,000/- attendants.
5) Loss of income during the Rs. 33,000/- period of treatment.
6) Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
------------------
Total Rs.6,99,072/-
------------------
6. Consequently, the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.1,54,272/- (Rs.6,99,072/- less Rs.5,44,800/-) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Negligence as held by Tribunal is sustained.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK