IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM M.F.A.No.4881/2016(MV-I) BETWEEN SMT. BONASANTA MURALI W/O SRI MURALI PALANIAPPAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.A-503, MANTRI FLORA IBLUR JUNCTION, SARJAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560 103 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI P.S.GURUMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S S R S TRAVELS PROP.K.T RAJASHEKAR NO.321/3, T S ROAD OPP.BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE KALASIPALYA BENGALURU-560 002 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRM TRANSPORT INDIA PVT LTD SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA HARI KRUPA, MIRZA ROAD ANEKAL, BANGALORE DISTRICT REG NO.KA-51/A-8911 3. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE NO.414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG NEAR SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025 AND ALSO AT ITS REGIONAL OFFICE M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIWALA BENGALURU-560068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6350/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant in MVC.No.6350/2013 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short), has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The admitted facts are that the claimant, an inmate of sleeper coach bus bearing registration No.KA-
42/9486 while proceeding to Karaikal met with an accident involving another Tourist Bus bearing registration No.KA.51/A.8911. The said accident is not in dispute. So also injuries suffered by the claimant, which resulted in her prolonged treatment on several occasions in five different hospitals. It is also not in dispute that the medical bills which are produced and relied upon by the claimant is to the tune of Rs.43,53,000/- under three separate batches which are marked at Exs.P20, 22 and 50 in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is further not in dispute that the Doctor who treated her has given evidence as PW.4 in support of her claim. It is on appreciation of this material on record, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the claim petition filed by the appellant herein by its judgment and award dated 25.1.2016, wherein the compensation awarded to claimant is to the tune of 36,91,350/-. In that, the medical expenses itself is the major component amounting to Rs.17,64,587/-. This Court would pause for a moment here and then look at the documents on record.
3. The documents available on record would indicate that the amount spent towards medical expenses is to the tune of Rs.43,50,472/-. Hence, the balance amount which is to be paid will have to be looked into. In that behalf, the evidence of claimant is looked into. She would clearly admit that her employer has reimbursed the medical expenses to the tune of 70% and said 70% out of the medical expenses of Rs.43,50,000/- would come to Rs.30,45,000/-. In this background, when the medical expenses considered by the Tribunal is looked into, it is nearly Rs.4,50,000/- in excess of the expenses that she has incurred towards medical treatment.
4. Even otherwise, when the judgment impugned is looked into, it is seen that the Tribunal has meticulously taken into consideration every aspect of the matter which is pleaded and tried to be proved by the claimant in adducing evidence in support of her claim who are PWs.1 to 6, wherein the evidence of claimant is as PW.1. In addition to that, she has examined 3 doctors, who are PWs.4 to 6. Besides them, other two independent witnesses are also examined, who are the representatives of the employer of the claimant. In the said evidence, the qualification of petitioner, her job as on the date of accident, her income and also the nature of injuries suffered in the accident, the extent of disability that is caused to claimant in her day-to- day life, the amount of medical expenses incurred by her and the future treatment that is required by her, are all placed on record and the same is appreciated by the Tribunal threadbare, thereafter, the judgment impugned is passed.
5. Against the said judgment of the Tribunal dated 25.1.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimant mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head injury, pain and suffering is on lower side, that future medical expenses is not considered and loss of future income is also not considered. However, when the material on record is assessed, this Court is unable to understand how the prayer of claimant regarding future medical expenses and future loss of income could be considered in the absence of pleading and evidence in support of the same.
6. As could be seen from the record and paragraph 16 of the judgment impugned, there is no loss of income to the claimant subsequent to the accident. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the injuries suffered in the accident would come in the way of claimant’s professional progress at a future date, which is rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and in the absence of evidence, question of considering the loss of future earning capacity does not arise. So far as future medical expenses are concerned, there is a general statement by PW.4 that claimant may require physiotherapy for the rest of her life and she may have to undergo plastic surgery for the bed sour she might have suffered during the period when she was confined to bed. Though such a statement is made by PW.4, admittedly, he is not the Plastic Surgeon and he has not given any opinion that the said treatment is required to claimant and there is no evidence with reference to the amount that is required to be spent for the said treatment, if at all it is required. Therefore, in the absence of evidence indicating that such treatment is required and also in the absence of any evidence to indicate what would be the cost of such treatment, it is definitely not possible for the Tribunal to give any finding on that aspect. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal to that effect is conspicuously absent which cannot be found fault with.
7. Further, when it comes to the contention that compensation is not considered on all heads is incorrect inasmuch as it is not only for pain and suffering but also for conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges, loss of amenities in life and loss of enjoyment of marital life, for everything the compensation is considered. Though the same is contended to be on lower side, when all the compensation under said heads are looked into from the angle of medical expenses that is awarded by the Tribunal, as discussed supra, the compensation that is awarded under the medical expenses is nearly Rs.4,50,000/- over and above the amount which is spent by the claimant.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper on all counts and the same does not call for interference by this Court for enhancement of compensation on any of the grounds urged in the appeal memo.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nd/-