IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.4784/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA BY HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., II FLOOR, No.25/1, BUILDING No.2 SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
BY IT’S MANAGER-CLAIMS – SOUTH.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . G S MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH, R/AT No.E 13, GEJJIGADHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVANAPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 162.
2 . PAWAN KUMAR PATODIA MAJOR, S/O PURANMAL PATODIA No.D1102, BRIGADE GATEWAY, No.2671, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE-560 055.
...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2019, PASSED IN MVC No.7197/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-4), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,54,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATRE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for Admission, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the same is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2019, passed in MVC No.7197/2017, by the learned Member, MACT and XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-4), wherein, the claim petition came to be allowed in part and the injured claimant was granted compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with reference to their rankings as held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The incident that led to initiating the proceedings before the Tribunal is, that on 18.2.2017 at about 5.45 p.m. petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.02.HR.9447 and rider of the said motorcycle was waiting for a signal to move ahead and was waiting behind the car bearing Registration No.KA.01.AE.2010 near Jamakhan Gate, BHEL Circle, Yeshwanthapur, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA.02.MG.9073 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle on which petitioner was sitting as a pillion rider from back side, because of which, he sustained fracture injuries. He further avers that he has spent Rs.80,000/- on medical expenses and other related expenses. A criminal case came to be registered at Yeshvanthapur Traffic Police Station in Crime No.74/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. Claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16.00 lakh.
4. Respondent No.1-Pawan Kumar Patodia is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the Insurer. They resisted the claim petition.
5. The learned Member on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced before it, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company has presented this appeal.
6. The injuries stated to have been suffered by the petitioner as diagnosed is: comminuted fracture of right pubis bone and right lower lobe consolidation, pulmonary infarction secondary to pulmonary thromboemoblis, cause immobility to pelvic bone fracture and Bronchoscopy done under LA. Doctor has also opined that injuries are grievous in nature.
7. However, petitioner has not chosen to examine the Doctor to assess the disability. It appears disability is not a significant one imparing his earning capacity and the learned Member has assessed the
8. Learned counsel Sri. O.Mahesh appearing for appellant would submit that petitioner was entitled only for Rs.1,79,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs.2,79,000/- awarded. According to the appellant, petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient due to pulmonary infection and not due to the result of the injuries. The said submission cannot be accepted and it is rejected, since it is necessary to analyze the vulnerability of human body to infection without fresh injuries whenever body is hit and disability or injuries are sustained.
9. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the head under which compensation is awarded by the learned member, I do not find there is exaggeration in the amount awarded. At the cost of repetition and in the absence of loss of future income as it is refused only on the ground that the Doctor has not assessed the disability, the compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- awarded is just, fair and reasonable. There is no necessity to further proceed in the appeal. In my considered view, it is labile to be dismissed at this stage itself. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE