IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2791 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
BABU KULAL S/O KUSTA KULAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O KATKERI, KONI VILLAGE & POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADV.) AND:
1. PRAKASH PURANIKA MAJOR, S/O SRINIVASA PURANIKA R/O KASARAKODU MANE TOPPALA VILLAGE, U.K.DISTRICT 2. THE PARTNER M/S.DURGAMBA MOTORS KUNDAPURA 3. SRI.M.KRISHNA, MAJOR S/O NARAYANA HANDA R/O KATKERI, KONI VILLAGE & POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT (BY SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR R4) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.456/2002 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT & ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The injured preferred Claim petition for having suffered a road traffic accident and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura by its judgment and award dated 21st October, 2009 passed in MVC No.456 of 2002 awarded a compensation of Rs.76,300/-. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and submits that the claimant is entitled for additional compensation and hence he seeks allowing the appeal and to suitably enhance the compensation.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the Tribunal. It is his submission that though the injured has suffered accidental injury in the year 2002 but even today he is continued in job and is earning a salary of about Rs.41,500/- per month. He also submits that the insured has availed 197 days of EL and there is no loss of income. He also submits that the income claimed by the appellant in the year 2002 was itself Rs.3,000/- and hence he is not entitled for any future loss of income.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the judgement and award of the Tribunal. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is lower inside. The appellant was an inpatient for about 153 days itself shows that the impact of injury suffered in the accident and the pain and suffering undergone by the appellant. Further, the compensation awarded under the head special diet, nursing and attendant charges at Rs.4,050/- is very meagre as also the compensation awarded for conventional heads at Rs.3,000/- is also meagre.
5. Be that as it may, In the ends of justice by awarding globally another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as is awarded by the Tribunal, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly it is ordered. Appeal is allowed in part. Insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn