IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8246 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
CHIKKANNA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT BUGUDANAHALLY, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK & DIST. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.PATEL D.KAREGOWDA, ADV.) AND:
1. SHIVASHANKAR S/O SHIDDARAMAIAH, 37 YEARS, BANGIHANUMANTHAIAHNA PALYA DIBBUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.2262, 7TH B MAIN, 3RD STAGE, NEAR YALAHANKA NEW TOWN-BUS STAND BENGALURU - 560 106 BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 28.03.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.76/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT-XI, TUMAKURU, 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:
J U D G M E N T Accepting the submission made, notice to respondent No.1 dispensed with.
2. For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 21st August, 2014, the claimant preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XI, Tumakuru. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 09th August, 2017 passed in MVC No.76 of 2015 awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error by not awarding just compensation. He submits that the appellant has claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing agriculture work and by betel leaves vending, but the Tribunal has not considered the same. The Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of amenities, nutrition, diet and attendant charges. Hence the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation suitably.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Hence, he submits to dismiss the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. The accident is not in dispute and the injuries suffered in the accident is also not in dispute. The Tribunal, in the course of its judgment, has observed that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and due to the said injury he has suffered permanent disability. When there is observation made to the extent that the appellant has suffered permanent disability, the Court ought to have awarded justifiable compensation. Though the income is not proved by the appellant, taking note of the year of accident, which in the instant case is 2014, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,500/- per month. Accordingly, the same is awarded under the head loss of income during the laid up period. Towards pain and suffering, considering the age and the discomforts to be undergone by the appellant, another Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. Towards loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Though the claimant has claimed that he has spent Rs.2 lakhsa towards medical expenses, no bills are produced. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the same, which is just and proper. Thus the claimant is entitled to Rs.38,500/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.
Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn