IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3942 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT.BHAGYA JYOTHI W/O B.C.BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R./AT NO.134/317, SONIKA 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 060. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU & ASSOCIATES BY SMT.B.N.NAGAVENI, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.K.H.RAGHAVAN B-200, MARUTHI NILAYA, BAHUBALI NAGAR, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.750, RAJANNA BUILDING, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 058.
(BY SRI.A.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 – DISPENSED WITH) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4498/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on at 21st February 2010 while she was proceeding as a pillion rider along with her husband on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 41 E 7156, the offending vehicle KA 04 N 1424 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in the claimant suffering the injuries. He was hospitalised between 21st February to 03rd March 2010; again got admitted on 15th April 2010 for further treatment; and at Madikeri Super Speciality ENT Center between 13th June and 15th June 2012. The claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.2,60,000/- per annum. The learned counsel seeks enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurance supports the impugned order and submits to dismiss the appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. We find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has suffered multiple fracture of nasal bone, fracture of alveolar process of maxilla in right permanent aspect extending into the ipslilateral side of hard place, contusion face with compound comminuted pan facial fracture-bilateral, loss of upper incisors, fracture in line traversing through the root of the 1st incisor, displaced fracture fragments in the anterior and posterior wall of maxillary sinus on both sides, displaced fracture of zygomatic arch with displacement, fracture of orbit bone, fracture of lacrimal bone. The appellant, in different hospitals, has undergone four operations with internal fixation. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant is not in a position to do any work and she has to depend on others even for her day-to-day activities. The appellant being a lady and has suffered grievous injuries and her face has become disfigured. The Doctor who has treated her has assessed that she has suffered 30% disability to her face. Considering all these, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side; and in the ends of justice the compensation needs to be enhanced. In that view of the matter, considering the pain and agony the claimant has to undergo for the rest of her life, we are inclined to award another Rs.70,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Since the claimant has attached with stigma of disfigurement to her face, we are inclined to award Rs.70,000/- under the head loss of amenities in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the period of hospitalisation in different hospitals, we are inclined to award another Rs.40,000/- under the head food, nourishment and attendant charges. As regards the medical expenditure is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that medical bills at Rs.3,15,501.28 is produced. In that regard, the Tribunal in the course of its judgment has observed that there were repetition of bills and out of repeated bills only one bill has been taken into consideration and has awarded Rs.1,97,497/-. The same cannot be found fault with. In total, the compensation would be Rs.4,47,497/- as against the amount of Rs.2,67,497/- awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part. Enhanced amount carries interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn Sd/- JUDGE