IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.3775 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN C.B. KALASHETTY S/O BORASHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O CHIKKAGENIGERE VILLAGE SHANTHINAGARA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 201.
(BY SRI. BYRA REDDY.G.S., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRINIVAS D S/O. K.R. DASAPPASHETTY 2ND MAIN, HEMAVATHINAGAR HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
…APPELLANT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED C. NANJAPPA COMPLEX, HASSAN-573 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 D/W.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.975/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.02.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.975/2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- (excluding Rs.25,000/- towards Medical Expenses) in favour of the appellant together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization on account of death due to accident that occurred on 15.10.2010.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant was not entitled to any compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period. In this context, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate that the appellant-claimant is working as a Mechanic in KSRTC and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and as such, the finding that he would not be entitled to any compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same deserved to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident, a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is highly inadequate and meager in as much as the appellant suffered three fractures as well as suture wound and other injuries. As such, the appellant- claimant would be entitled to additional compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. In addition thereto, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submit that the compensation awarded under other heads is inadequate and the same requires enhancement by this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment and award.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that having regard to the unimpeached evidence of the appellant-claimant (PW.1) and the Doctor (PW.2) coupled with documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period. The Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached material on record produced by the appellant-claimant would clearly establish that he is working as a Mechanic and consequently, the appellant-claimant having regard to the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that the income of the appellant-claimant during the year 2010 is to be taken as Rs.5,500/-, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- p.m. under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period.’ 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, having regard to the material on record which would clearly establish that the appellant-claimant suffer three fractures as well as other injuries in the accident in question, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is insufficient and the same requires enhancement. Accordingly, I am of the opinion, the appellant is entitled to additional sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’.
9. Accordingly the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.31,500/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the dated 15.02.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.975/2011 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.31,500/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. excluding the interest for the delay period of 347 days from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The additional enhanced compensation to be released in favour of the appellant-claimant.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD