IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA NO.6072/2014 (MV) BETWEEN BHEEMEGOWDA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED 39 YEARS KOWSHIKA VILLAGE & POST SHANTHIGRAMA HASSAN TALUK 573201 (BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV.) ... APPELLANT AND 1. R.NAGABHUSHAN S/O RANGAPPA AGED 33 YEARS NO.9, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANPURA, BANGALORE 560002 2. THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURNACE CO.LTD CULCUTTA REP BY ITS MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MANJUNATHA COMPLEX BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN, 573201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2) NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 1.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.523/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.12.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-X-6326 by its rider and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
5. As per wound certificate Ex.P-5, the claimant had sustained following injuries:-
a) Movement restricted at right ankle joint b) Abrasion 3x2 cm medial aspect of over the right ankle c) Abrasion 1x2 cm medial aspect of left ankle The injuries sustained and treatment underwent by the claimant are also evident from discharge summary Ex.P-7, medical bills, Ex.P-8, prescription Ex.P-9, X-
rays Ex.P-13, 15, 16 summary sheet Ex.P-14 and corroborated by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor, who were examined as PWs-1 and 2 respectively. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 28% to the limb and 9.33% to the whole body.
6. Considering the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. As Rs.10,144/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘medical expenses’ is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
8. The claimant has contended that he had taken treatment for a period of 25 day in Government Hospital, Hassan. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘incidental expenses’ such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
9. The claimant claims to have been doing agricultural work and working as LIC Agent and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and has produced RTC extracts at Ex.P-11 and LIC agent copy at Ex.P12. Ex.P-
11 would go to show that he is an agriculturist and Ex.P12 would show that he was an LIC agent. No documents are produced to show as to how much income he was earning from agriculture and LIC agency. Therefore, considering his age as 40 years, year of accident as 2012 and his avocation as agriculturist, his income could be assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month as against Rs.6,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. The nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months and therefore a sum of Rs.24,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ as against Rs.2,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in his future life, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’.
11. The claimant is aged about 40 years at the time of accident, and multiplier applicable to his age group is 15. His income is assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month.
PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that claimant has suffered disability of 28% to the lower limb and 9.33% to the whole body and it can be rounded off to 9%. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.1,29,600/- (8000 x 12 x 15 x 9/100) and it is awarded as against Rs.1,00,755/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-
HEADS Rs.
Pain and sufferings 35,000 Medical Expenses 10,144 Incidental expenses 6,000 Loss of income during laid up period 24,000 Loss of amenities 15,000 Loss of future income 1,29,600 TOTAL 2,19,744
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.75,445/- 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. The same is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DM