Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S.G. Pandit, V. Srishananda, JJ.
Iqbal Sayyad Ambi - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Nimbaji Khandekar - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 100040 of 2015
Decided On : 01-07-2020
Sanjay S Katageri, Advocate, S.S. Koliwad, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act should accurately reflect the claimant's injuries, losses, and future needs, and should be based on proper assessments of income and disability.
Headnote:
M.V. Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the assessment of compensation under various heads. It highlighted the assessment of monthly income, disability percentage, and various compensation heads, and the court's decision to modify the compensation based on these assessments.
Fact of the Case:
The injured claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation after being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The claimant argued for higher income assessment and disability percentage, seeking an increase in compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income and disability percentage on the lower side. It also concluded that the compensation awarded under various heads was inadequate, leading to the decision to modify and enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Issues: 1. Assessment of monthly income of the injured claimant. 2. Justification of disability assessment. 3. Entitlement for enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the monthly income assessment was lower than justified and modified it based on price index and other material. It also upheld the disability assessment and enhanced compensation under various heads to adequately reflect the claimant's injuries and losses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, directing the respondent Insurance company to deposit the modified compensation with interest within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
S.G. Pandit, J. - The injured claimant is before this court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 01.10.2014, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Athani in MVC No.2602/2012.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident involving truck bearing No.KA-23/A-918 on 23.09.2012.
3. The accident occurred involving to the above vehicle, the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal.
4. The tribunal on consideration of the material placed on record by both claimants as well as the Insurance company awarded compensation of Rs.8,12,346/- with interest @ 6% p.m. from the date of petition till realization under the following heads:
1 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2 Food and Nourishment 5,000/- 3 Attendant charges 2,000/- 4 Traveling expenses 3,000/- 5 Medical expenses 63,246/- 6 Future medical expenses Nil 6 For artificial limb 1,00,000/- 7 Loss of future income due 5,34,600/- to disability 8 Permanent disability 25,000/- 9 Loss of income for one month including during laid off period 4500/- 10 Loss of amenities of life not inclusive of marriage prospects 25,000/- TOTAL 8,12,346/-
5. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month and added 50% towards future loss of income. Further the tribunal assessed the disability at 60% taking the multiplier at 11. The injured claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, is before this court in this appeal and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantinjured claimant and respondent-Insurance company. Perused the lower court records.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the tribunal committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the injured at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is his submission that the injured claimant was owner of the lorry and to demonstrate the same, R.C. book was placed on record as Ex.P79. As such, the tribunal taking note of the oral evidence of PW1 as well as Ex.P79 ought to have assessed the monthly income of the injured claimant on the higher side.
8. Further, the learned counsel submits that injured claimant has sustained amputation of left leg below knee and the disability assessed by the tribunal at 60% is on the lower side. Taking note of PW2 doctor's evidence and medical evidence placed before the tribunal, it is his submission that the disability of the injured is to be assessed at 100% taking note of his amputation. He was inpatient for 18 days and the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the lower side.
9. The learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded particularly on the head of pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/- is on the lower side, since he has undergone amputation below knee, whereby he has suffered mental agony and pain and suffering. Thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference.
11. He further submits that the injured claimant has not placed on record any material to establish his income. Further, it is his submission that the appellantclaimant has not suffered any functional disability. He was the owner of the lorry as could be seen from Ex.P79, but he has not placed on record any documents to indicate the volume of lorry business, which he was having. In the absence of such material, the tribunal has assessed the income notionally at Rs.4,500/- per month, which needs no interference.
12. The learned counsel also submits that PW2- doctor examined on behalf of the injured claimant has deposed that the injured claimant ha
