IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.8210/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
C.P RAMYA D/O PUTTASWAMY AGE 24 YEARS OCC:BBM STUDENT R/O :CHITHUVALLY VILLAGE KELAGURU POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 111.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA H S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . CHANDRASHEKAR P S/O PUTTASWAMY AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MALALURU VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN-577 133.
2 . M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, OPP TO RAGANNA CHOWTRY BASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
… RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.10.2018, PASSED IN MVC No.443/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for orders, considering the nature and circumstances of the case, I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed. Delay of 249 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal by the appellant/claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Member, MACT, Chikkamagaluru, in MVC No.443/2016, wherein, the claim petition came to be allowed in part granting a sum of Rs.1,62,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization and seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with the ranks assigned to them before the Tribunal.
4. The details of the accident are: On 30.8.2015 at about 8.30 p.m. petitieonr was traveling in the passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA.18.A-4380 from Chikkamagaluru to Malaluru, when it came enar Malaluru school near K.R.Pete, the 1st respondent being the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned the said vehicle since stray calf entered the road, lost control over the said vehicle, due to which, auto capsized. Due to which, petitioner sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and also grievous injurie son other parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and as per the aadvice of theDoctor she was shifted to WENLOCk Hosptial, Mangalroe and spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses. Therefore the claimant sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Respondents contested the claim of the petitioner.
5. The learned Member adjudicated the matter considering the oral evidence of claimant who was examined as PW1 and relevant documents produced, awarded the compensation of Rs.1,62,400/- together with interest.
6. The break up compensation is as under:
7. The same is challenged in this appeal by petitioner and seeks for enhancement.
8. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner/ appellant and perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Member.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that income assessed is on the lower side and the compensation awarded is insufficient and it requires enhancement.
9. In the accident, petitioner has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and other grievous injuries and as per the evidence of CW1,Dr. Sudhakar T., petitioner has sustained 45% disability to her lower limb and the tribunal has considered 10% disability to whole body.
10. The learned member considering notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- and nature of injuries sustained and percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner awarded the compensation of Rs.1,62,400/- under different heads as mentioned above. In the context and circumstances of the case, considering the accident and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as stated above, the said compensation of Rs.1,62,400/- granted by the learned Member appears to be fair and just and it does not call for interference by this Court by enhancing the same. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected at this stage itself and accordingly, it is rejected.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE