IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.689/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
CHANDAN S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A BOREGOWDANA PALYA KEMPANAHALLI POST HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK . ..APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . DHARNESH G. MAJOR , R/A NO.422, 56TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE-560 010.
2 . THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, 165-166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION H T PAREKH MARG, CHURCH GATE MUMBAI-400 020. ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.3735/2015 ON THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17) 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 appeal is listed for orders on I.A., in the nature and circumstances of the case I.A.1/2019 is allowed. Delay of 407 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 16.08.2017 passed in MVC No.3735/2015 by the XIX Additional SCJ and MACT, Bengaluru, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.7,89,080/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation came to be granted to the petitioner.
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant-Chandan is the injured in the accident that occurred on 01.04.2015 when the petitioner was traveling as pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EK-221 on the left side of B.M.Road, Kunigal. Meanwhile a bus bearing registration No.KA-01/A-7156 came from Nelamangala side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear portion of motorcycle because of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. It is claimed that he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.300/- per day from electrical work.
4. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are:
(i) Deep lacerated injury on the upper part of right thigh.
(ii) Post traumatic fracture shaft of right femur (iii) Fracture shaft of both bones of right leg.
5. Petitioner stated that number of days hopitalised is 63 days. However learned counsel submits that it was 50 days. For the purpose of assessing loss of future income learned Member considered monthly income at Rs.7,000/- as against the claim of the petitioner of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from agriculture and Rs.300/- per day from electrical work.
6. Compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads are as under:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2. Attendant charges, extra food and conveyance expenses Rs. 35,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs.4,74,880/-
4. Loss of income during laid up period 5. Loss of income due to permanent disability 6. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs. 28,000/- Rs.1,51,200/- Rs. 20,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.7,89,080/-
7. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Raghu submits that the Tribunal considered the disability at 10% to the whole body as against 14.37% for the limb disability. Learned counsel submits it should have been considered at 14%.
8. It is necessary to note that learned Member has assessed medical expenses at Rs.4,74,880/- and loss of income due to permanent disability is calculated by considering monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, disability at 10% and applying multiplier `18’ as under:
Rs.7,000x12x18x10/100 =Rs.1,51,200/-
9. In the circumstances I find grant of compensation of Rs.7,89,080/- more particularly with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. appears to be fair and just. No infirmity in the impugned Judgment and award and no necessity of further proceedings to consider the quantum of compensation.
Appeal is rejected at this stage itself.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN