Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1881/2013 (MV) C/W. M.F.A.NO.1267/2013 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.1881/2013 (MV):
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAYANA N. PAI @ RAJEEVI WIFE OF NAGARA PAI PARTNER SRINIVASA AGENCIES AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF R.P.ROAD, SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 401.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI UMESH MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI SANJEEVA SHETTY SON OF SHIVARAJA SHETTY DRIVER, HANUMAN MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., R/O SAMPADAMANE HOSANGARA TALUK 577 418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2 . THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER HANUMAN MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD., HANUMAN COMPOUND UDUPI-576 101
3 . M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RUB BUILDING, A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED; SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.124/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.1267/2013 (MV):
BETWEEN:
SMT. MONTHI N. PAI W/O NAGARAJ PAI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SBI LIFE INSURANCE MARKETING AGENT R.P.ROAD, SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 401.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI UMESH MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI SANJEEVA SHETTY SON OF SHIVARAJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS DRIVER, HANUMAN MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., R/O SAMPADAMANE NAGODI POST HOSANAGARA TALUK-577 418.
3 2 . THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER HANUMAN MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD., HANUMAN COMPOUND UDUPI-576 101
3 . M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RUB BUILDING, A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.125/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs’ COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though the matters are listed for admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. These two appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.Nos.124/2010 and
4 125/2010 on the file of the MACT at Sagara (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.
The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants have suffered injuries in the road traffic accident that took place on 18.10.2009. The claimants took treatment for the said injuries and also suffered permanent disability. A claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming compensation. The Insurance Company resisted the said claim petition by filing the statement of objections. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, in MVC No.124/2010 awarded the compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- and in MVC No.125/2010 awarded the compensation of Rs.2,48,300/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeals are filed by the claimants.
5 4. In MFA No.1881/2013, it is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month though the accident has taken place in the year 2009 and the doctor, who treated the claimant and examined as P.W.8 before the Tribunal, also assessed the cognitive disability of 58% and 5% neurological disability. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a meagre compensation on all heads by taking the disability at 20% to the whole body without considering the neurological disability at 5%. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.1267/2013 also would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has not awarded the actual loss of income during the laid up period by taking the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of five months. The Tribunal also not awarded any compensation on head of ‘loss of amenities’ and an appropriate compensation towards ‘pain and sufferings’.
6 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal in MVC No.124/2010, has considered the nature of injuries and period of treatment and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’; an amount of Rs.1,59,497/-on the head of ‘medical expenses’. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.79,200/- on the head of ‘loss of future income’ and an amount of Rs.12,000/- on the head of ‘loss of income during laid-up period’ considering 4 months requires reconsideration by this Court. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on the head of ‘future medical expenses’ and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on the head of ‘transport, nourishment and attendant charges’ is just and reasonable and does not require any interference of this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company also would submit that in MVC No.125/2010, the Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation, which does not require any interference of this Court.
7 8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:- (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court ?
(ii) What order?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii):- 9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the materials on record, in MVC No.124/2010, the claimant was an inpatient for a period of 52 days and suffered head injury along with other injuries. The doctor who has been examined as P.W.8 deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant has suffered 58% disability to the particular limb and 5% of neurological disability. Having perused the records, only an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is taken as income of the claimant. The accident is of the year 2009. In the absence of
8 any documentary proof, the Court has to take note of the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Having perused the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.75,000/- on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’, which is at par. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.1,59,497/- toward ‘medical expenses’ on the medical bills based on the documentary proof. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the compensation awarded under the said two heads.
Having perused the quantum of compensation awarded on the head of ‘loss of future income’, the Tribunal has taken only 20% of the disability. When the claimant has suffered the neurological disability of 5%, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same while assessing the compensation, which has not been done. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by adding 5% of the neurological disability to the 20% of the disability as assessed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant has suffered the disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body.
9 11. Having taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month and by applying the relevant multiplier as 11, since the claimant was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident, the compensation on the head of ‘loss of future income’ is recalculated as hereunder:- Rs.5,000x12x11x25%=Rs.1,65,000/-
The Tribunal also awarded the compensation of Rs.12,000/- on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. When the claimant was an inpatient for a period of 52 days, it might have taken minimum 5 months to cure from the said injuries. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per months for a period of 5 months, the compensation on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid-up period’ would come to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.12,000/-.
The future medical expenses is awarded to the tune of Rs.25,000/- by the Tribunal, which is at par. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. However, when the claimant was an inpatient for a period of 52 days and the accident is of the year 2009, the compensation awarded by the
10 Tribunal to the tune of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘transport, nourishment and attendant charges’ requires to be enhanced by awarding an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded as against Rs.20,000/-.
The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of amenities’. When this Court has reassessed the disability at 25%, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the head of ‘loss of amenities’ as she has to lead rest of her life with the disability of 25%. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,29,497/- as against Rs.3,71,000/-.
The Tribunal in MVC No.125/2010 has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2,48,300/- considering the medical bills, pain and sufferings, future medical expenses and also the transportation, nutrition and attendant charges and hence, all these heads does not require any interference of this Court. The claimant has produced Ex.P52-the copy of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in support of her contention that she was working as an SBI Life
11 Insurance Marketing Agent. On perusal of the same, it discloses that after deducting the TDS, she was getting the salary of Rs.2,42,798/-. It is not in dispute that the claimant continued the job as an SBI life Insurance Marketing Agent and when she has suffered the injuries and the disability of 10% to the whole body as assessed by the doctor, the question of assessing the compensation on the head of ‘future loss of income’ does not arise. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
The claimant is only entitled for the compensation on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. When she was an inpatient for a period of 51 days, it requires minimum 4 months to recover from the said injuries. Hence, 4 months of loss of income is to be considered for assessing the ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. Having taken her income for a period of 4 months, it would come to Rs.80,932/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.80,932/- is awarded on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid-up period’ as against Rs.25,000/-.
The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of amenities’. Having considered the
12 medical evidence, the claimant has suffered the disability of 10% to the whole body as assessed by the doctor, which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.20,000/- on the head of ‘loss of amenities’.
Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,24,208/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against Rs.2,48,300/-.
In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by granting compensation of Rs.5,29,497/- as against Rs.3,71,000/- in M.V.C. No.124/2010 and Rs.3,24,208/- as against Rs.2,48,300/- in M.V.C.No.125/2010, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
13 (iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks’ from today.
(iv) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE
PYR