- 1 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MFA No.104084 OF2019(MV-D) C/W MFA NO.104085 OF2019MV-I) MFA NO.101019 OF2020(MV-D) MFA NO.101020 OF2020(MV-I) IN MFA NO.104084/2019 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY-590002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. KALAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
47. YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE.
2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
43. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
3. SRI. SUNIL BASAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
20. YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE RESIDENT BELAVI, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.
4. M/S. R.N.S. TRACKING RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD, NO.28, A/P KOLLIKOPPA, HUBLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT1TO3 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVED) - 2 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED0605/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT AT: HUKKERI IN M.V.C NO.921 OF2017WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.104085/2019 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY-590001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND1 SRI. RAVINDRA APPASAHEB KADALAGI, AGE:
25. YEARS, OCC: MASON, AGRICULTURE AND MILK VENDING BUSINESS, NOW NILL R/O. BELAVI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.
2. M/S. R.N.S. TRACKING RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD, NO.28, A/P: KOLLIKOPPA, HUBLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1) (R2-SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED0605/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT AT HUKKERI IN M.V.C NO.922 OF2017WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.-. 3 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 IN MFA NO.101019/2020 BETWEEN1 SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
48. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAVI-591236, TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
44. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BELAVI-591236, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SUNIL S/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR, AGE:
23. YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O. BELAVI-591236, TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. ..APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND1 M/S. R.N.S TRACKING RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT LTD, NO.28, AT/POST: KOLLIKOPPA, HUBBALLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-591118, TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED0605.2019 IN MVC NO.921/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUKKERI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION - 4 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 RS.9,11,600/- (EXCLUDING THE AWARDED AMOUNT) TO THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.101020/2020 BETWEEN SHRI. RAVINDRA S/O. APPASAHEB KADALAGI, AGE:
26. YEARS, OCC: MASON, AGRICULTURE AND MILK VENDING BUSINESS, NOW NIL, R/O. BELAVI-591107, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND1 M/S. R.N.S TRACKING, RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD, NO.28, AT/POST: KOLIKOPPA, HUBBALLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-581336, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED0605.2019 IN MVC NO.922/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUKKERI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.8,97,600/- TO RS.15,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against common judgment and award dated 6.5.2019 passed in MVC Nos.921 and 922 of 2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hukkeri (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. MFA No.104084/2019 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.921/2017, whereas the claimants have filed MFA No.101019/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation for the accidental death of Sri.Suresh.
3. MFA No.104085/2019 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.922/2017, whereas the injured/claimant has filed MFA No.101020/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by him.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 11.02.2017 at about 13.00 hours, Suresh Iragar (deceased in MVC No.921/2017) was proceeding on motorcycle bearing - 6 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 registration No.KA-36/EJ-7712 from Raxi towards Hukkeri side, along with his friend Ravindra, pillion rider (injured in MVC No.922/2017). When they came near Kyaragudda on Ghataprabha-Hukkeri road, one Mahindra CRDI vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/C-0053 came from Hukkeri side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Due to which, rider Suresh sustained fatal injuries and pillion rider Ravindra sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Hukkeri for treatment. However, Suresh succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimant Ravindra took treatment in different hospitals and suffered disability. It is averred that the deceased Suresh and the injured Ravindra were working as Mason and were earning Rs.20,000/- per month respectively. The legal heirs of the deceased Suresh filed claim petition in MVC No.921/2017 and the injured Ravindra filed claim petition in MVC No.922/2017 seeking compensation.
5. The respondents entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It is averred that there was no negligence on the part of the - 7 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 driver of the offending Mahindra Jeep and it is the rider of the motorcycle, who has caused the accident in question. It is also averred that the claim of the claimants are exorbitant and without any basis. Thus, sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
6. During trial, the claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P18. The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and marked documents as Ex.R1 and R2.
7. The Tribunal on considering the entire material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in MVC No.921/2017 and Rs.8,97,600/- with interest at 6% per annum in MVC No.922/2017. Being aggrieved by the liability as well as quantum of compensation, the insurance company as well as the claimants have filed the above appeals.
8. Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company in support of his appeals would vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed grave error in appreciating the evidence available on record. The - 8 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 evidence on record indicates that the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Suresh came extreme right of the said road and dashed to the offending Mahindra Jeep. In support of said contention, learned counsel places reliance on the sketch of the accident available on record. It is further submitted that rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Suresh was not holding driving license, as is evident from the evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is also submitted that the appellant/insurance company had sent notice to the owner of the vehicle, who had handed over the said motorcycle to the deceased Suresh knowing fully well that the rider Suresh did not have driving license. He further submits that taking note of these facts, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the deceased Suresh as well as owner of the motorcycle, which clearly establishes that the deceased Suresh did not know driving, resulted in accident in question.
9. Learned counsel Sri. Arani further argues that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per month. The evidence on record would indicate that the deceased Suresh was a student as is evident from the inquest - 9 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 panchanama. He further submits that the motorcycle, which was ridden by the deceased Suresh was less than 100cc capacity and riding the said motorcycle without DL with pillion rider is contrary to Section 140(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the insurance company by holding that the deceased was negligent in riding the motorcycle and contributed the accident in question.
10. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Sunanda P. Patil appearing for the appellants/claimants supporting the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal would submit that the sketch available on record clearly indicates that the width of the road is 18 feet and from the spot shown in the sketch, towards southern side of the said spot, there is 8 feet left over road, which further indicates that from the spot of the accident, there is 10 feet road towards northern side, which clearly indicates that the rider of the motorcycle was on the left side and not on the right side. In support of her contention, she places reliance on Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama, which also indicates the said fact. It is further submitted that Ex.P1 is the complaint which clearly indicates that the driver of offending - 10 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 Mahindra Jeep came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle.
11. Learned counsel Smt. Sunanda Patil would further submit that after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the deceased Suresh under Sections 3 and 181 of the MV Act and not under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. The driver of the offending jeep was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. Hence, question of holding that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent would not arise. In support of her contention, she places reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Palariya & Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others1 and Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others2 and contends that mere non-possession of driving license itself would not constitute that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent. Non-possession of driving license by the rider has no consequence, when the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the driver of the offending Jeep was negligent. 1 2019 ACJ422 2008 ACJ1834- 11 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 12. Learned counsel Smt. Sunanda makes further submission on the quantum of compensation and submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per month, as the evidence available on record clearly indicates that both were working as Masons and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, she prays to consider the income of the deceased as well as injured/claimant at Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of consortium in MVC No.921/2017. Insofar as compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.922/2017 is concerned, She submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities and award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side. It is also submitted that Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation for loss of income during laid up period only for a period of two months. Thus, she seeks to allow the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation appropriately.-. 12 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record including the Tribunal records, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals: a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the driver of Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KA-22/C-0053 was negligent and the insurance company is liable to pay entire compensation?. b) Whether the claimants in both the appeals would be entitled for enhanced compensation?.
14. Answer to the above points would be in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons:
15. Parties to the proceedings do not dispute that on 11.02.2017 in a road traffic accident, Sri.Suresh sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same in the hospital and the pillion rider Ravindra sustained grievous injuries and had taken treatment at different hospitals. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Suresh was riding the motorcycle in question and the injured Ravindra was a pillion rider.-. 13 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:
16. The contention of the appellant/insurance company that the rider of the motorcycle took his vehicle on the extreme right side of the road and was negligent in riding the vehicle, which resulted in causing the accident in question. It is also contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not in possession of DL and he did not know driving, is the cause for the accident. On bare perusal of the sketch available on record, it clearly indicates that the offending Jeep was proceeding from Hukkeri to Ghataprabha and the motorcycle was proceeding from Ghataprabha to Hukkeri. The width of the road is 18 feet. The accident spot shown in the sketch clearly indicates that from the left side of the spot i.e., towards southern side, there is 8 feet road and towards northern side, left over road is shown as 10 feet, which is unambiguous and clear that the accident has taken place towards southern portion of the road, which clearly indicates that the rider of the motorcycle was on the left side of the road. Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama further makes it clear that towards northern side, there was 10 feet left over road from the spot of the accident. In other words, rider of the motorcycle was on the left side of - 14 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 the road when the accident took place. Hence, it can be fairly held that the driver of the offending Jeep has come on wrong side of the road and dashed the motorcycle.
17. A bare perusal of Ex.P1-complaint clearly indicates that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Jeep and rider of the motorcycle was on the left side of the road. Insofar as contention with regard to non-possession of driving license by the deceased is concerned, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the Investigating Officer after investigation has filed charge sheet against rider of motorcycle i.e., deceased Suresh and driver of Mahindra Jeep as well as owner of the motorcycle. On perusal of charge sheet papers, it is evident that the charge sheet is filed against the deceased rider for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 181 of the MV Act, however, charge sheet is filed against the driver of Mahindra Jeep for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, which further makes it clear that the driver of the offending Jeep was negligent and caused the accident in question. Further, non-possession of driving license that itself is not a ground to come to a conclusion that the rider of the - 15 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident in question. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana’s case referred supra has held as under: “8. If a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” Similarly, in Saraswati Palariya’s case referred supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “5. The finding of the High Court of contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a driving license is equally unsustainable. Driving without a valid driving license may expose the claimant(s) to other liabilities but no inference of contributory negligence can be arrived at on that basis.” - 16 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 18. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that non-possession of driving license ipso-facto would not constitute negligence of rider of motorcycle. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the driver of the offending Jeep was negligent and caused the accident. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Jeep is just and proper, which does not call for interference. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant/Insurer with regard to negligence as well as non-possession of DL by the deceased rider of the motorcycle and the same is rejected. Similarly, with regard to the contention that the motorcycle was less than 100cc capacity, the said contention is also required to be rejected as the appellant/insurance company has neither pleaded nor produced any iota of evidence to substantiate the said contention.-. 17 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION IN MFA NO.101019/2020 (MVC NO.921/2017) 19. The contention of the insurance company that the deceased Suresh was a student, as is evident from inquest report has no merit consideration. As the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly indicates that the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra were working as mason under Sanjiv Chikkodi, Class-I Contractor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P1- complaint clearly indicates that the deceased Suresh was working as Goundi. Hence, mere mentioning in the inquest report that the deceased was a student has no merit consideration and the appellant/Insurance Company has not produced any contrary evidence on record to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per month respectively. The appellants/claimants have failed to produce cogent and acceptable evidence to assess the income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to assess the income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra notionally placing reliance on income chart prepared by KSLSA. Accordingly, this Court - 18 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 would assess notional income of the deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.10,250/- per month as against Rs.7,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased as 23 years, applicable multiplier of 18 and deduction of 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. The Tribunal is justified in adding 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects, which is undisturbed. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.10,250 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.15,49,800/- 20. The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3, claimants No.1 and 2 would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- each including 10% escalation under the head of filial consortium. The Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- each on the head of loss of estate and funeral 3 2018 ACJ2782- 19 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 expenses. However, the said sums shall carry 10% escalation for every three years. Thus, the claimants would be entitled total compensation on the following heads: Sl.No.Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,49,800/- 2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 36,000/- 3. Filial Consortium Rs. 96,000/- Total Rs.16,81,800/- 21. Thus, the claimants in MVC No.921/2017 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,81,800/- as against Rs.10,88,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. IN MFA NO.101020/2020 (MVC NO.922/2017) 22. As stated supra, the income of the injured Ravindra is assessed at Rs.10,250/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to age of the injured Ravindra as 23 years and applicable multiplier of 18. The doctor who gave treatment to the injured Ravindra has issued disability certificate at Ex.P9 stating that the injured Ravindra has suffered permanent physical disability amounting to 50% to the whole body, which in my considered view is just and proper, requires no - 20 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 interference. Thus, the claimant Ravindra would be entitled to compensation on the head of loss of future earning due to disability as under: Rs.10,250 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.11,07,000/- 23. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.60,000/-, as the appellant has suffered major injuries. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding a meager sum of Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. Hence, it is just and proper to award another sum of Rs.20,000/- on the said head. The appellant/claimant was inpatient for about 20 days having suffered grievous injuries. Hence, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,750/- (Rs.10,250 x 3 months) under the head of loss of income during laid up period as against Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of compensation on the other heads is just and reasonable, which is not disturbed. Thus, the injured Ravindra would be entitled to total compensation on the following heads: - 21 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 Sl. Particulars Amount No.1. Pain & Suffering Rs. 60,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 58,580/- 3. Loss of future income due to disability Rs.11,07,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs. 30,750/- 5. Attendant, food, nourishment charges Rs. 10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- 7. Transportation & incidental expenses Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs.13,00,330/- 24. Thus, the claimant in MVC No.922/2017 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,00,330/- as against Rs.8,97,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
25. It is noticed that this Court while condoning the delay in filing the appeals by the claimants, made an observation that the appellants/claimants would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period, in case if they succeed in the appeals. Hence, the claimants in their respective appeals would not be entitled for the interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period.
26. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 22 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 ORDER
a) MFA No.104084/2019 & MFA No.104085/2019 filed by the insurance company are dismissed as devoid of merit. b) MFA No.101019/2020 & MFA No.101020/2020 filed by the claimants are allowed in part. c) The common impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants in MVC No.921/2017 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,81,800/- as against Rs.10,88,400/- awarded by the Tribunal and the injured/claimant in MVC No.922/2017 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,00,330/- as against Rs.8,97,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. d) The enhanced compensation amount in both cases shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petitions till the date of payment. e) The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount in both the appeals filed by the claimants with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. g) The amount in deposit made by the appellant/insurance company in MFA - 23 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:4593 MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020, MFA No.101020/2020 No.104084/2019 & MFA No.104085/2019 be transmitted to the Tribunal along with TCR. h) Needless to say that the claimants in MFA No.101019/2020 & MFA No.101020/2020 shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period. Registry to take note of same while drawing award. i) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE JTR List No.:
1. Sl No.:
7.