Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1815 (KAR)

Paravva v. Mahantesh

2020-09-18

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15th January 2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-VIII, Badami (for short 'the tribunal') in MVC No.611/2009. 2. The Tribunal by way of above judgment has awarded a sum of Rs.38,000/ with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the award amount in favour of the appellant for injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 08.05.2009. 3. Heard. Admit. 4. With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 5. The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage of the offending vehicle by respondent-Insurance Company is neither in question nor in dispute. Hence, the facts leading upto the accident are not being adverted to. 6. The present appeal has been filed only seeking enhancement of compensation by the appellant who was the petitioner before the Tribunal. 7. The Insurance Company has not filed any other appeal. 8. In the accident, the appellant has suffered fracture of femur right side and contusion of left foot. 9. The Tribunal awarded aforesaid amount on the following heads. Sl.No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 2 Medical expenses 10.000/- 3 Conveyance charges 1,000/- 4 Nourishment of food 1,000/- 5 Towards disability 5,000/- 6 Attendant charges 1.000/- Total 38,000/- 10. The Sri. S.S. Yaligar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meager, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the gravity and severity of the injuries suffered by the appellant. The appellant is therefore entitled to for higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Per contra, Smt. Sharmila M.Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contends that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard Sri. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard Sri. S.S. Yaligar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Sharmila M.Patil learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company and perused the papers. 13. Disability: Though the trial Court records have not been called for, with the consent of both parties, the disability certificate issued by treating Doctor, which had been marked as Ex.P9, handed over by the counsel is examined by this Court. A perusal of same would indicate that the claimant is stated to have suffered disability of 40% for the whole body. However, considering that the claimant has suffered only one fracture, which was required to be operated upon, I am of the considered view that 40% stated by the treating Doctor appearing for the limb not for the whole body. As such for the whole body, 1/3rd of disability would have to be taken into consideration. 40% of 1/3rd would be 13.33%, which is rounded of to 14%. 14. Multiplier: The appellant is aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be 18. 15. Income: The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, in terms of notional income fixed for this purpose by the Lok- Adalath,for the year 2009 an income of Rs.5,000/- would have to be taken into consideration. In view of the above, calculation of loss of earnings due to injury would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 14% = Rs.1,51,200/- . 16. Attendant CHARGES: The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards attendant charges. Considering that the petitioner had been operated upon and rod and nail have been fixed to stabilize the bone, I am of the considered opinion that the amount awarded under the said head is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 17. Nourishment CHARGES: Similarly the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards nourishment charges, in my considered opinion the same is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 18. 17. Nourishment CHARGES: Similarly the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards nourishment charges, in my considered opinion the same is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 18. Loss OF EARNINGS DURING LAID-UP PERIOD: The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of earnings during laid-up period. Since the appellant has suffered grievous injury and he took treatment for a period of two months, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for loss of earning during laid up period. Hence, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 2) being the income multiplied by the time the appellant was laid up, on this account. 19. Loss OF AMENITIES: Towards the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation, as the appellant has lost out on the aspects of a normal life due to the injury sustained, I am of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is required to be awarded on this head of account. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, which in my considered opinion it does not require any enhancement. 21. Three is no dispute as regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads of accounts. 22. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Sl. No. Heads of accounts Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Difference 1 Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 20,000/- - 2 Medical expenses 10.000/- 10,000/- - 3 Conveyance charges 1,000/- 1,000/- - 4 Nourishment of food 1,000/- 10,000/- 9,000/- 5 Towards disability 5,000/- 5,000/- - 6 Attendant charges 1.000/- 10,000/- 9,000/- 7 Loss of income during laid up period - 10,000/- 10,000/- 8 Loss of earning due to injury - 1,51,200/- 1,51,200/- 9 Loss of amenities - 20,000/- 20,000/- 23. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 15th January 2013, passed by the tribunal' in MVC No.611/2009 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.