Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 872 (KAR)

Bheemarao @ Bheemappa, S/o Sharanappa @ Shankar Shinde v. Mallikarjun Kadapatti, S/o Somashekhar

2025-07-09

RAVI V.HOSMANI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ravi V Hosmani, J. With consent of both parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 21.04.2022 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short ‘tribunal’) in MVC no.217/2020, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri Sanjay Patil, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted at 8:30 p.m. on 10.12.2019, when claimant was riding pillion on motorcycle bearing no. MH-12/JJ-0549 on Katraj-Kondhawa road, Pune, driver of Lorry no. KA-28/C-9911 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Despite taking treatment at Bharati Hospital and Research Centre, Dhanakawadi, Pune and Kamareddy Hopsital, Kalaburagi he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Claimant filed petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of lorry. 4. Despite service, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Insurer appeared and filed objections, denying age, occupation and loss of earning capacity as well as alleged violation of terms and conditions of policy by insured. Insurer also opposed claim petition on ground of being excessive. 5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SB Kamareddy as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 13. Respondent did not lead any oral evidence, but, got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1 with consent. 6. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry, claimant sustained permanent physical disability and was entitled for compensation from insurer as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- 2 Attendant, food and conveyance charges Rs.12,000/- 3 Loss of future income Rs.19,84,300/- 4 Medical expenditure Rs.2,63,600/- 5 Loss of income during treatment Rs.26,500/- 6 Loss of amenities and nutrition food Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.23,76,100/- 7. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. 8. It was submitted, claimant had sustained fracture on right tibia and amputation of right leg above knee, despite same, tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and requested for enhancement. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. 8. It was submitted, claimant had sustained fracture on right tibia and amputation of right leg above knee, despite same, tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and requested for enhancement. It was submitted, claimant was stated to be working as a plumber and earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. However, tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.13,250/- p.m. It was further submitted that tribunal had taken permanent physical disability at 78% as per assessment of PW-2, but did not add future prospects as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2022) 18 S.C.R. 427 . It was further submitted, award of Rs.12,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges was also on lower side, considering that claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 30 days. Likewise, even award of Rs.26,500/- towards loss of income during lay off period is also on lower side. On above grounds, sought for enhancement. 9. On other hand, Sri Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel for respondent opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had awarded just compensation under separate heads, which do not call for interference. 10. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award. 11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal only questioning quantum, only point that arises for consideration is: ”Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 12. My answer to point is partly in affirmative for following reasons. 13. Claimant stated that he was working as a plumber and earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. But, he did not substantiate same with any specific evidence. In absence, tribunal rightly assessed same at Rs.13,250/-, as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore, there is no scope for enhancement. Tribunal referring to Exs.P-5 to 8 i.e. wound certificate, discharge summary and disability certificate held that claimant sustained fracture of left tibia and amputation of right leg above knee, but, awarded only Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which was grossly inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,50,000/-. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,300/- towards medical expenses, which is in complete reimbursement of bills produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges. It would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,50,000/-. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,300/- towards medical expenses, which is in complete reimbursement of bills produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges. Considering that claimant was inpatient for a period of 30 days, same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Taking note of disability assessed by PW-2, tribunal assessed functional disability at 78%. Taking note of alternative avocation, which would supplement income and mitigation of physical disability by wearing artificial limb, assessment loss of earning at 78% appears just and proper. However, as per ratio laid down in case of Mohd. Shabir (supra), even in personal injury claims, claimant would be entitled for addition of future prospects to his monthly income. Claimant was aged 32 years and self employed. Hence, addition of future prospects would be 40% and multiplier would be 16. Thus, computation towards future loss of earning would be Rs.27,78,048/- [(13,250 + 40%) x 78% x 12 x 16]. 14. Normally in case of amputation of right leg, 6 months period is considered as lay off period, for which claimant would be entitled for Rs.79,500/-. 15. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and Another , (2011) 1 SCC 343 claimant would be entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Apart from above, tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses, which would be towards artificial limb, its periodic maintenance and replacement. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards same. Thus, claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.35,50,848/- assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/- 2 Attendant, food and conveyance charges Rs.30,000/- 3 Loss of future income Rs.27,78,048/- 4 Medical expenditure Rs.2,63,300/- 5 Loss of income during treatment Rs.79,500/- 6 Loss of amenities and nutrition food Rs.1,50,000/- 7 Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.35,50,848/- ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Judgment and award dated 21.04.2022 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC no.217/2020 is modified. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs. 35,50,848/- . iii. Needless to say that claimant is entitled for interest on said amount at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. iv. ii. Judgment and award dated 21.04.2022 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC no.217/2020 is modified. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs. 35,50,848/- . iii. Needless to say that claimant is entitled for interest on said amount at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit enhanced compensation with interest before tribunal within a period of six weeks. Sri Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel for respondent is permitted file Vakalath within four weeks.