IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.NO.7370/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
ANAND R.
S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O LOKESH REDDY BUILDING, KITTAGANAHALLI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI.VISHWANATH S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE KRUSHI BHAVANA, 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC, K.H. DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.21.02.2014) THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2552/2011 ON THE FILE OF 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2552/2011 dated 11.04.2012 on the file of MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-15), questioning the quantum of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is the case of the claimant that on 04.03.2011 at about 7.00 a.m. he was waiting near Narayana Hrudayalaya bus stop, Hosur road, Bommasandra, at that time a Volvo Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-FA-1741 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sparsha hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 04.03.2011 to 19.03.2011 and he has spent Rs.2,50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards incidental charges.
3. It is also the case of the claimant that he was working at M/s. Page Garment Export Private Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.500 per day. Due to the accident, now he is unable to do any work.
4. In pursuance of the claim petition, respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel has filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. The claimant, in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P17. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 has got examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R.1.
6. The Tribunal by considering both oral and documentary evidence has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are meager and hence, it requires interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would contend that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation considering all the heads and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?
2. What order?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
10. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal considering wound certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 respectively, wherein it is stated that the claimant has sustained head injury and also he was inpatient for a period of 18 days. Having considered the nature of head injury i.e., CT brain showing EDH measuring about in 15ml in volume in left frontoparietal region, early contusion in the left basifrontal region. He was admitted in ICU and was treated conservatively with anti edema measures. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and hence, I do not find any reasons to enhance the same.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.41,000/- towards medical expenses based on documentary evidence available on records. Having considered that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 18 days, an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards food and nourishment and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards conveyance and attendant charges and hence, it does not requires any interference of this Court.
12. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2011 and on perusal of the letter at Ex.P.13, the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Hence, it is appropriate to take the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- per month. Having considered the nature of injuries and the claimant was inpatient for a period of 18 days, he requires bed rest for minimum four months and hence, it is appropriate to take four months salary and award a sum of Rs.26,000/- (6,500 x 4) as against Rs.15,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of future income due to disability. While awarding compensation under this head, the Tribunal has observed that the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 assessed cognitive disability to an extent of 36% and 15% to the whole body. The evidence of Doctor – P.W.2 shows that he has treated the petitioner along with team of doctors. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner has answered the questions properly and there was no loss of memory as stated by the Doctor. Hence, the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor.
14. The Tribunal has committed an error by coming to the conclusion that petitioner has no disability and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is meager, merely on the ground that the petitioner was present before the Court and answered all the questions properly. The Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of head injury, petitioner was inpatient for a period of 18 days and evidence of the Doctor. Since the accident is of the year 2011, the notional income of the petitioner has to be taken at Rs.6,500/-. Hence, it is appropriate to take the disability as 10% and calculate the income under this head. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,40,400/- (6500 x 12 x 14 x 10/100) is awarded as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities in future life. Considering the nature of injuries and evidence of the Doctor, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under this head. Since the claimant was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident and he has to lead rest of his life with the disability, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.
16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the tribunal in M.V.C.No.2552 of 2011 dated 11.04.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-15 is modified and an amount of Rs.2,92,400/- is awarded as compensation as against Rs.1,71,000/- awarded by the tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit.
(iii) The respondents are directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within 8 weeks from today.
(iv) The order of the tribunal in respect of apportionment and depositing the compensation amount in fixed deposit shall remain unaltered.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-