IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4834/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
B.R.VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH R/AT BANGAVADI VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI V.VINOD REDDY, ADV. FOR SRI G.PAPI REDDY, ADV.) AND:
1. B.GOPAL, VAMMASANDRA VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. RAMRAJ P.S, S/O. SURAPARAJU MUNNIDIVIRAM MANDALAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BANK STREET KUNCHI MANCHI AGRAHARAM ALALAPURAM ANDHRA PRADESH.
(BY SRI GNANAMURTHY, ADV. FOR R1 SRI K.N.SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R3 R2-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:11.08.2017) ... RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.182/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & MACT, KOLAR, ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed in MVC No.182/2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kolar.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 30.01.2005. It is stated that on 30.01.2005 when the claimant was proceeding in a Tempo bearing Reg.No.AIP.9375 from his Village along with others carrying cocoons, the driver of the Tempo drove the vehicle in a rash, negligent manner and as such lost control of the vehicle. Due to which the Tempo turtled on the right side. As a result the claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that the claimant took treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar as inpatient for 15 days. It is stated that he was aged 40 years and he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing cocoon business.
3. On issuance of summons, the 3rd respondent – Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. Further it is stated that the driver of the Tempo had no license to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. It also contended that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Policy was issued for the goods vehicle and the claimant was not covered under the policy. The claimant examined himself as PW.2 and also examined the Doctor as PW.8 in support of his case apart from marking the documents. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record, taking the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month and taking the whole body disability at 4% awarded total compensation
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Perused the entire material on record.
5. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusal of the entire records, the only question that arises for consideration is as to “Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?” Answer to the said question is in the affirmative for the following reason :
The accident is of the year 2005, the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is on the lower side. The claimant states that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing cocoon business. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2005 would normally take notional income of Rs.3,500/- per month. Hence, in the absence of any document to indicate the exact income of the claimant, it would be appropriate to take the notional income of the claimant at Rs.3,500/- per month for determining the compensation on the head ‘Loss of future income’.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal without there being any reason assessed the whole body disability at 4% as against the evidence of PW.8 – the Doctor, who stated that the claimant has suffered 5% whole body disability.
7. The claimant has suffered injury of abrasion over the anterior aspect of the right knee, abrasion over the left knee and swelling and tenderness present over the right ankle joint. Looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant, evidence of PW.2 and medical records, I am of the view, that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 4%. It is stated that the claimant was inpatient for more than 15 days. Looking to the injuries suffered and the treatment taken as inpatient for more than 15 days, I am of the view, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head pain and suffering and attendant charges and conveyance is on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head loss of amenity, which the claimant would be entitled. Thus the claimant would be entitled for the following enhanced compensation:-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.84,200/- as against Rs.50,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms