M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) (TDS)

M/S BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, "PRIDE QUADRA", III FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560024. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

MR. MOHAMMED RAFIULLA H. R. S/O. MR. BNDUL RASHEED, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.102, A BLOCK, SATELLITE SPLENDOR, SUN CITY ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DATED 30/03/2021 NOTICE TO R2 D/W.)

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted compensation of Rs.3,26,800/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal in which it is contended that he sustained fracture of both bones over left leg, lacerated injury over shoulder and right thigh and

Appellant needs another surgery which costs about Rs.1,50,000/- and he also require Rs.50,000/- for removal of implants but the Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/- towards Future medical expenses. Lastly, he contend that the amount

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

The petitioner was riding Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05-GA-9815 and when he reached Vivekananda Park, BEML Nagar, a car bearing registration No.KA-03-MW-8127 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner's scooter. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he took treatment as inpatient from 15.03.2017 to 18.03.2017 for a period of four days and shifted to another hospital and was inpatient from 18.03.2017 to 24.03.2017 for a period of 7 days and spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses.

The Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head 'loss of future earnings' and was observed that the petitioner is a Class-I Civil Contractor and he can get done his work through his masons, so also the Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner on the ground that Ex.P14 is the

In response, counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Subashchand Jain v. Ganapathi1 in which, it was held that - "the loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. Any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from the business".

As per the evidence of PW.3-doctor, petitioner limps while walking, difficulty to sit, squat and crossed leg, unable to bear weight on his left leg, difficulty to climb stairs, difficulty to stand on his left leg for longer period, shortening of left leg by 2 cms, restriction of left ankle joint movements and left knee joint movements, swelling and tenderness present over upper third of left limb and disability is assessed as 41.5% towards

Petitioner met with an accident in the year 2017 and he filed his taxable income as per the letter of the Chartered Accountants under Ex.P14 for a period of five years. After taking average of the sum, Rs.37,698/- per month can be taken as his income. Considering the evidence of PW.3, this Court finds it reasonable to take disability as 14% since there is mal-union of the fracture and shortening of left leg by 2 cms. As he is a Civil Contractor, he has to go to the field and get is his work done with the assistance of masons and it cannot be said that there is no functional disability on his part. The petitioner is aged about 53 years and the appropriate multiplier to be taken is 11. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to * Page Nos.6 to 10 are retyped and replaced, vide Court Order dated 26.09.2025.

Further, the amount of Rs.1,85,732/- granted under the head 'medical expenses' is just and proper and needs no interference. The Tribunal had granted Rs.40,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' which is also proper and needs no interference. The amount granted under the head 'food and nourishment expenses, conveyance and attendant charges' is Rs.20,000/- which is meagre and the same has to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and so also the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted under the head 'loss of amenities of life and disability' is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Lastly, the amount granted under the head 'loss of income during the period of treatment' holds good and needs no interference.

The appellant's counsel mainly contended that without any evidence, the Tribunal has assessed 25% contributory negligence on his part and it has to be rectified. But the respondent No.1- Insurance Company in the written statement stated that the petitioner was crossing Vivekananda Park without taking proper care and without observing the traffic rules, and was negligent in crossing the road. In the cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he was crossing road at junction of 4 roads and there is no signal or circle and it was suggested that as per sketch, he was riding his motorcycle on the right side of the road and his left side footpath was faraway from the way on which he was going. Therefore, if he was proceeding on his left side road, he could have been avoided the accident but he denied it. It was observed that the car was coming from left side cross road to the main road to take left 4 Medical expenses 1,85,732/- 5 Loss of income during the period of treatment 50,000/- 6 Future Medical expenses 40,000/- 7 Loss of amenities of life and disability 40,000/-

In the result, the following order is passed: