IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A. NO. 830/2016(MVC) BETWEEN;
ASHWATHY RAMACHANDRAN, D/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.246(7/199), CHIRAKAKATHU 12, PARAKKADAVU, KAKKAPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KERALA, PRESENTLY R/AT AMBHA NILAYA, PANDITH HOUSE, PERAMANNUR VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575 018.
(By SRI. THARANATH POOJARY. I, ADV.) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. MR. RAMANAND S/O. KANTHAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT. MUTHRUSHREE HOUSE, IRUVAIL POST, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 243 2. BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 11/09/05, 1ST FLOOR, KATKAM, KRISTAIAH COMPLEX, CITY TALKIES ROAD, RAICHUR KARNATAKA-584 102.
... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R.2, R.1 NOTICE NOT ORDERED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1570/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The claimant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard Sri. Tharanath Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurer. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 13.05.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing registration No.KA-36-M-8764 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
4. As per the wound certificate and discharge summaries produced at Exs.P3, P7 and P8 respectively, the claimant had sustained fracture of tibia, fibula and talus and several other injuries. The injuries sustained and treatment underwent by the claimant are evident from wound certificate-Ex.P3, discharge summaries- Exs.P7 and P8, disability certificate-Ex.P9, photos- Ex.P13, case sheets-Exs.P20 and P22, X-rays-Exs.P21, 23 and 27, CT Scan-Ex.P24 and disability certificate- Ex.P25 and supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and doctor, who were examined as PW.1 and 4 respectively.
5. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment underwent by the claimant, Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘pain and suffering’ is just and proper and does not call for interference.
6. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,30,000/- towards medical expenses based on the medical bills produced by the claimant and the same is just and proper, does not call for interference.
7. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 19 days in K.M.C. Hospital, Mangaluru. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
8. The claimant was studying in first year BDS course at the time of accident, considering the same a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during laid-up period/loss of education is just and proper and does not call for interference.
9. PW.4-doctor who treated the claimant has stated that claimant has suffered 15% disability to the whole body. Claimant is aged about 24 years and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘18’. In case of non-earning person, while settling the matter before the Adalath, Courts used to take income of such persons between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, it is just and proper to take income of the claimant at Rs.60,000/- per annum at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. So loss of future income would work out to Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 15%) and it is awarded as against Rs.40,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in her future life, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Considering the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘future medical expenses’.
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The judgment and award dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru in MVC No.1570/2013 stands modified. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,56,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,500/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in the name of claimant in any Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 3 years with a right of option to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant immediately after the deposit.
15. The Tribunal while releasing the remaining compensation amount is also directed to issue the fixed deposit slips, so as to enable the claimant to withdraw the deposit amount on its maturity without approaching the Tribunal once again and the Bank is directed to release the fixed deposit amount without insisting for any further order from the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE PMR