Karnataka High Court
Dayanand S/O Bhimalu Pawar vs Subhash S/O Bhimalu Pawar And Anr on 2 February, 2018
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200499/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN
Dayanand
S/o Paramanna Wadageri
Aged 26 years, Occ: Cable Operator
Now Nil, R/o Deval Ghanagapur
Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Gulbarga - 585 301
... Appellant
(By Sri B.C.Jaka, Advocate)
AND
1. Subhash S/o Bhimalu Pawar
Aged Major, Occ: Owner of the vehicle
i.e., Tractor beg.No.KA-32-TA-0439
R/o Machanal Tanda, Tq. Afzalpur
Dist. Gulbarga - 585 301
2. The Manager
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
P.B.No.47, Super Market
Dr. Jawali Complex
Gulbarga - 585 102
... Respondents
(Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with V/O Dtd. 17.07.2015)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the
judgment and award dated 16.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.
No.1328/2012 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT
at Gulbarga, partly allowing the claim petition and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,
L.Narayana Swamy J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-injured has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for having suffered the injury in the road traffic accident occurred on 17.06.2009.
2. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the claimant has examined PW.2-the doctor in support of his disability and in his evidence, the doctor has deposed that the injured has suffered 25 to 30% disability to the whole body, on which the Tribunal has selected 25% while awarding the 3 compensation under the head loss of future earning and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- disbelieving the case of the claimant.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the claimant has pleaded before the Tribunal that he is a cable operator, earning about Rs.7,000/- per month, the same is disbelieved. It is further submitted that the income has to be assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month and suitable compensation is to be awarded even on the other heads also.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer submits to dismiss the appeal and further submits that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation. 4
6. The only ground urged by the appellant for enhancement of compensation is to select the income for the purpose of awarding compensation. The said submission has been examined and it is found that the appellant has not proved the income. Only he had pleaded that he is a cable operator, earning about Rs.7,000/- per moth, that was not believed. In the circumstances where the income has not been proved, the notional income is to be assessed with relevance to the year of accident. For the accidents of the year 2009, this Court and also in the Lok Adalath, the notional income is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the same is applied here also. The percentage of disability selected by the Tribunal at 25% and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal at 18 is correct and the same is accepted. Hence, the calculation would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 25% = Rs.2,70,000/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled for an additional 5 sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of future earning. An additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during laid up period. Towards conveyance and attendance charges, another sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. A sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. In all, the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.1,48,000/-. The enhanced amount carries interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award are modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LG