Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to as claimant and respondents.

NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB

15. Learned counsel Smt.Mamata D.N., for the appellant-claimant submits that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car, the said accident has taken place and due to the accidental injuries, now the claimant is completely bedridden and he has suffered paraplegia. It is her submission that, the claimant has spent substantial amount towards his medical expenses. Till date, he is not recovered. After the accident, on getting information, his father working at Abudabi, by applying leave rushed to India and attended the claimant. The claimant not only has taken treatment at Bengaluru in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, but also at Vellor hospital, so also other hospitals. It is her submission that, when the said accident has taken place, he was I-year mechanical engineering student and prosecuting his studies at M.S.Ramaiah College Bengaluru. The claimant had a bright future and because of the accidental injuries, he has been deprived of his bright career as an engineer. Even till date, he is depending upon others for his movement and always the presence of attendant is necessary for him. It is

38. The learned counsel for the claimant by relying upon some judgments submits that, the claimant has prayed for enhancement in the compensation and because of permanent disability, the income of the claimant has to be considered as he was an engineering student. She AIR 2020 SC 4424

- 27 -

NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB submits that as the claimant was an engineering student and because of accidental injuries the benefits of future prospects has to be calculated in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others5. It is further submitted that due to the injuries in lower limbs, he lost his senses, for calls of nature and needs all time attendant for his daily routine work. He cannot move without wheel chair or motorised vehicle and thus, his future is in complete jeopardy. The lower limb of claimant was completely paralysed resulting into 100% disability. Therefore, she submits that, the compensation on account of injuries causing 100% disability is required to be awarded. It is her submission that, because of 100% permanent disability suffered by the claimant, resulted in permanent disability in his bodily movements. This fact has not been denied by the insurance company. In view of the condition of the claimant, as noticed by the treating doctors stated supra, it shows that, the claimant is required attendant to meet AIR 2017 SC 5157

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB his needs. According to the claimant there is no hope for complete recovery of his physical impairments. According to her submission, as the claimant was an engineering student, who had bright future has to be awarded reasonable compensation. It is the duty of the courts to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation the quest of individuals to better their circumstances and those of their loved ones, raising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of the work. If one takes this rationale into account, the situation is quite clear with respect to notional income.

39. The Division Bench of this Court (I am also member of Bench) in MFA No.9029/2018 (MV-D) clubbed with MFA No.6018/2018 (MV-D) His Lordship Dr.H.B.Prabhakar Sastry J., being the author of the judgment, relying upon the documents therein, produced by the claimant, assessed the notional income of an engineering student at `18,000/- per month. While

- 29 -

NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB assessing the said income, it is observed that "in the instant case also, the deceased V.B.Pavan was a student pursuing his 1st year B.E. course, as such his course cannot be equated to that of a student pursuing MBBS course, who were deceased. In Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another6 case and in the case of Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Hanumanthappa and others in MFA No.1129/2019 (MV-D) C/w MFA No.4937/2018 (MV-D) disposed of on 20.03.2023. Thus, the income of the deceased in the given case which was taken at a sum of `30,000/- by the Tribunal is without any reasons or basis and as such it is on the higher side. On the other hand, the income of the deceased-V.B.Pavan is to be taken notionally at a sum of `18,000/- per month.