Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1208 (KAR)

Peter v. Hanifa

2015-10-29

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This is claimant's appeal challenging the judgment and decree in MVC No. 990/2014 dated 19.12.2014 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I & Addl. MACT, Belagavi. The appellant/claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.4.2014. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.4.2014 at about 7.20 p.m. his son and himself were standing near Fish Market, Belagavi after parking the vehicle near St. Anthony School. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant from behind causing serious injuries. He was admitted to Lake View Hospital, Belagavi, for treatment. The next day he was shifted to Kapileshwar Hospital, Belagavi. It is contended that he has sustained fracture of D-11 vertebra and other injuries. In all, he claimed compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs. 2. The respondent-Insurance Company has entered appearance and filed its written statement opposing the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the relevant issues. The claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P24 were marked in their evidence. The respondent-Insurance Company has not let in any oral evidence. However, policy of Insurance was marked by consent of the parties at Ex. R1. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,64,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W. 2 in his evidence has stated that the claimant had sustained 90% permanent disability to the whole body. The claimant was working as a mason. He is not in a position to do any work. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% functional disability. It is argued that the claimant was earning more than Rs. 650/- per day. However, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs. 200/- per day, which is on a lower side. It is argued that the compensation awarded under all other heads is also on a lower side. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% functional disability. It is argued that the claimant was earning more than Rs. 650/- per day. However, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs. 200/- per day, which is on a lower side. It is argued that the compensation awarded under all other heads is also on a lower side. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 6. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate? 7. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He had sustained fracture of D-11 vertebra, which has led to paraplegia and other injuries. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that the claimant had sustained 90% permanent disability to the whole body. The claimant was working as a mason. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he is not in a position to work as before. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability. 8. Though the claimant contends that he was earning Rs. 650/- per day, no documents have been produced in support of the said contention. The accident had occurred on 28.4.2014. It cannot be disputed that in the year 2014, a mason would have earned Rs. 300/- per day. Therefore, the income of the claimant is notionally assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the case is 15. By taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 9,000/- per month with the application of multiplier 15 and 100% functional disability, the compensation payable towards loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs. 16,20,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable. However, the award of Rs. By taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 9,000/- per month with the application of multiplier 15 and 100% functional disability, the compensation payable towards loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs. 16,20,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable. However, the award of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of life expectancy is on a lower side. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh has to be awarded towards loss of amenities. The claimant was hospitalised from 30.4.2014 to 18.5.2014. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards conveyance and other expenses. Award of Rs. 1,37,000/- towards medical expenses is on the basis of the bills, which is just and reasonable. Award of Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses is also just and reasonable. However, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards attendant charges. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimant is reassessed as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Towards loss of future earning capacity Rs. 16,20,000.00 2. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000.00 3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 4. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 25,000.00 5. Towards medical expenses Rs. 137,000.00 6. Towards attendants charges Rs. 1,00,000.00 7. Towards conveyance and other charges Rs. 25,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 22,07,000.00 10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,64,000/- which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs. 7,43,000/-. The said sum of Rs. 7,43,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The second respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,43,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant for a period of five years. The claimant is permitted to withdraw half yearly interest. The balance of the amount shall be released in favour of the claimant. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant for a period of five years. The claimant is permitted to withdraw half yearly interest. The balance of the amount shall be released in favour of the claimant. No costs.