Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1340 (KAR)

Hanamant Mother Chandravva Harijan v. Basappa

2020-07-06

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G.Pandit, J. - The claimant is before this court praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under common judgment and award dated 28.12.2012 in MVC No.130/2012 and connected with other MVC arising out of the same accident on the file of Presiding Officer, FTC and Addl. MACT, Soundatti. 2. The injured claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for the accidental injury sustained in a Motor Vehicles accident that occurred on 27.02.2011 involving the motorcycle bearing No.KA-24/K-5776 and TATA ACE vehicle bearing No.KA-48/790. The accident involving the above said vehicles and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is before this court claiming the enhanced compensation. The claim petitions arising out of the same accident were clubbed together and common evidence was led. The claimant got examined as PW2 and other claimant in MVC No.131/2012 got examined as PW1 and doctor was examined as PW3 and documents are marked vide Ex.P1 to 62. Respondent with the consent marked the policy as Ex.R1. 3. The tribunal based on the material on record and on analyzing the same, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- with interest at @ 6% p.a. on the following heads. 1 Loss of earning 68,000/- 2 Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 4 Attendants Charges and Misc. Charges 3,000/- 5 Loss of laid up period 4,000/- 6 Medical expenses 17,000/- TOTAL 1,17,000/- 4. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the yearly income of the claimant at Rs.40,000/- and assessed the disability at 10%. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantclaimant and learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company. Perused the trial court records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellantclaimant would submit that the claimant was agricultural coolie, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs.40,000/- per year which is on the lower side. Further, it is stated that the claimant suffered fracture of PP3rd doe and MP of 4th toe left foot, functional disability and it is stated that the doctor assessed the disability at 25% in respect of left lower limb and whole body at 15%. The tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs.40,000/- per year which is on the lower side. Further, it is stated that the claimant suffered fracture of PP3rd doe and MP of 4th toe left foot, functional disability and it is stated that the doctor assessed the disability at 25% in respect of left lower limb and whole body at 15%. The disability assessed by the tribunal at 10%, is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 7. Further learned counsel would submit that the claimant was inpatient for 15 days for treatment. Taking note of the injury sustained, treatment taken in the hospital by the claimant, the compensation awarded on the other heads are on the lower side, which needs enhancement. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. He submits that in the absence of any material to establish the income, the tribunal rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.40,000/- per annum. Further, he submits that the tribunal taking note of the evidence of PW3 the Doctor and disability certificate has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10%, which needs no interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the points that would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the income assessed by the tribunal of the claimant is proper and correct? 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 10. Answer to the above points are in the negative and affirmative respectively for the following reasons: 11. The accident is of the year 2011. The claimant states that he was doing coolie and agriculture work and earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. But, the claimant has not placed on record any document to establish the income earned by him. In the absence of any material to establish the income, the courts will have to assess the income notionally. The notional income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.40,000/- per annum is on the lower side. Normally this court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2011, would assess the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month which means Rs.72,000/- per annum. The notional income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.40,000/- per annum is on the lower side. Normally this court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2011, would assess the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month which means Rs.72,000/- per annum. Thus in the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the claimant at Rs.72,000/- per annum. 12. As stated above, the claimant suffered the injuries and he was inpatient for 15 days. The doctor got examined as PW3 in support of claimant's case, has stated that the claimant has sustained at 25% disability in respect of left lower limb and whole body at 15%. Taking note of the injury sustained by the claimant and the doctor evidence the tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10% which needs no interference. 13. As stated above, the claimant was inpatient for 15 days. Taking note of the treatment taken, injury sustained and doctor evidence, we are of the view that the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses and loss of income during laid up period are on the lower side. Looking to the injuries sustained, the claimant would have been out of employment for minimum three months. He would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of during laid up period at Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation 1 Loss of earning (72000X17X10%) 1,22,400/- 2 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 30,000/- 4 Attendants charges and Misc. charges 10,000/- 5 Medical expenses 17,000/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period (6000X3) 18,000/- TOTAL 2,27,400/- 14. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,27,400/-. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant-claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,27,400/- as against the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,17,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,27,400/-. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant-claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,27,400/- as against the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,17,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 280 days in preferring the appeal which is condoned by order dated 05.01.2015 subject to the condition that in the event of enhancement of compensation delayed period would not carry any interest. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by this court with up to date interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Draw the modified award accordingly.