MFA/6184/2024 of THE MANAGER Vs GIRISH KALKUR on 19 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 13.07.2023 passed in M.V.C.No.1104/2019 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi (in short, 'the Tribunal').

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 10.03.2018 at 02.30 p.m. involving the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/K-9426 and the tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-10/D-5164 (in short 'the offending vehicle'). Due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment in hospital and thus, claimed compensation under different heads.

4. After service of notice, respondent No.3/the Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement, wherein it denied the averments made in the petition. It also denied the factum of accident, the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, etc.

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

5. After framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,71,000/- under following heads: Sl.No. Heads of compensation Compensation amount (in Rs.)

Medical Expenses 1,90,000

Loss of earning (laid off period) 90,000

Future loss of earning 2,80,800

Future medical expenses 30,000

Pain and sufferings 50,000

Loss of amenities 20,000

Attendant charges and transportation 10,000 Total 6,70,800 rounded off 6,71,000

6. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is before this court.

7. After service of notice, claimant remain absent and unrepresented.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant. Digitally Signed By: K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

9. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Pradeep B would submit that, only based on the IT returns of the year of accident submitted to the IT Department by the claimant after the accident and thus, the income of the claimant was taken at Rs.30,000/- by the Tribunal, which is improper. Except the income portion taken by the Tribunal, he is not opposing the judgment on other aspects.

10. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and verifying the appeal papers, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is exorbitant?"

11. Finding of this Court is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

REASONS

12. The facts established before the Tribunal are that, the claimant suffered accidental injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending tempo on 10.03.2018 at 02.30 p.m. near cross road near Shrish Bhat House, Kodavoor. The judgment of the Tribunal does not reveal the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant.

13. The learned counsel for the claimant has produced the copy of Medico-legal certificate. According to it, claimant has sustained the fracture of ⅓rd of right Femur shaft, inter trauchantric fracture of right leg, fracture of distal end of right Radius. The Tribunal, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Indiro Devi and others reported1 held that the IT returns of 1 year produced by the 1 2018(3) T.A.C.350 (SC)

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

claimant is sufficient to decide the income of the claimant.

14. In that case, the deceased was an employee of a Company and getting salary of Rs.8,848/- per month. His IT returns for 2 years was furnished and there were variations between the 2 years. Even then the income of deceased for the assessment year of 2004-05, the previous year of the accident was considered. However, in the present case, the claimant has produced IT returns which he has furnished to the IT department only after the accident and not before the accident. Under these circumstances, he ought to have produced some materials to show that what was his income in the previous years to assess his income and also of the subsequent years to assess the functional disability. Hence, this Court holds that merely based on IT returns, the income of the claimant ought not to

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

have been taken at Rs.30,000/- per month by the tribunal.

15. The claimant contended before the tribunal that, he was working as catering contractor and newspaper agent. He has furnished IT returns on 26.03.2018. However, the date of accident is 10.03.2018. The IT returns is submitted in Form-V at ITR-3 i.e., in respect of business or self-profession. This self- assessment tax of Rs.2,150/- was paid as per the IT returns. Said Rs.2,150/- includes interest of Rs.100/. This shows that, the claimant has filed the IT returns belatedly and thus, he has paid the interest for the tax.

16. These things probabilize the contention of the appellant that IT returns might have been submitted only with an intention to get higher compensation in the motor vehicle accident claim petition.

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

17. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1-claimant has not produced any document to show that he was an agent of Udayavani Newspaper or doing catering contract business. Even then his evidence cannot be discarded in toto and his income cannot be taken only as per the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the purpose of determining income for Lok-adalath. Hence, the income of the claimant is to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month and not Rs.12,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by KSLSA or not Rs.30,000/- per month as per the IT Returns. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be modified by taking the income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month.

18. The Tribunal assessed the disability of the claimant at 6% to the whole body, his age was 48 years and thus, the relevant applicable multiplier is 13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation towards the

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

'loss of future earning capacity' would be Rs.1,40,400/- (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 13 x 6%).

19. As far as the 'loss of income during the laid up period' is reduced to Rs.45,000/- in stead of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As far as the 'future medical expenses', 'pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities', 'attendant charges and transport charges', the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unaltered. Except these two modifications, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unaltered. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation as under: Sl.No. Heads of compensation Compensation amount (in Rs.)

Medical Expenses 1,90,000

Loss of earning (laid off period) 45,000

Future loss of earning 1,40,400

Future medical expenses 30,000

Pain and sufferings 50,000

Loss of amenities 20,000

Attendant charges and transportation 10,000 Total 4,85,400/- Digitally Signed By: K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

Compensation awarded by Tribunal 6,71,000 Reduced amount 1,85,600

20. Hence, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

a. Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.

b. Judgment and award dated 13.07.2023 passed in MVC No.1104/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, is modified holding that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,85,400/- as against Rs.6,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c. The compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum form the date of petition till realization.

d. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

e. Disbursement and deposit shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.

f. Draw modified award accordingly.

g. No Order as to costs.

h. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. If there is excess compensation deposited, the Tribunal to refund it to the insurer on proper identification.

i. Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith. In view of disposal of the main matter, pending IAs, if any, does not survive for consideration.

(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SPV,BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

K B GEETHA