IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1156 OF 2013(MV) BETWEEN:
G. PRAKASH, S/O G.B. GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAVULE SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577031.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.H.S.SURESHAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. T.B. VEERAPPAGOWDA, S/O BHADRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O SONALE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577031.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AMEER AHMED CIRCLE SHIMOGA – 577031. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2.
RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.5.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 243/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-7, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant who is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 29.05.2012 made in MVC No.243/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 2.3.2008, while he was walking along with his uncle near Varamballi school, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-15-K-995 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant from the back side. Due to that, the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hosanagara. Thereafter, he had taken treatment in Government Hospital, Thirthahalli. As per the advice of the Doctor, he was shifted to Wen-lock Hospital, Mangalore. He claimed that he had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment. Prior to the accident, he was doing the work as an agriculturist and was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. In view of the injuries sustained, he can no longer do the work which he was doing prior to the accident and hence sought for compensation of Rs.8,30,000/-.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statement and defended the case. After trial, the Tribunal held that the accident has occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and hence, he is entitled for compensation.
4. With regard to the quantum of compensation isconcerned, it was observed that in the accident, the claimant had sustained a swelling of left lower limb above the ankle joint and fracture of tibia and fibula of the left leg. He was in-patient for a period of one day. He has produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.8,124/-. The Doctor who treated the claimant had been examined to assess the disability. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the injuries sustained and has awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.68,150/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. I have heard Shri H.S. Sureshappa Gowda appearing for the appellant and Shri A.M. Venkatesh, Advocate appearing for the second respondent and perused the judgment and award including the oral and documentary evidence.
6. The occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation concerned. Though the claimant produced the wound certificate as per Exhibit P-7 to show that he has sustained fracture of distal 3rd of tibia and fibula of the left leg and swelling injury to the ankle joint, the Doctor who treated the claimant has not been examined. The Insurance Company has not disputed the medical bills produced to the extent of Rs.8,124/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,124/- towards the medical bills. Even though the claimant has not examined the Doctor who treated the claimant, there is no dispute with regard to the wound certificate Exhibit P-7. In view of the fracture of the tibia and fibula of the left leg, the claimant was out of employment for a period of minimum two months. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period and other incidental expenditure that he has incurred during the period of treatment.
The compensation awarded under some of the heads are too low. Hence, taking into consideration the injuries sustained and undergone, it is appropriate to award global compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the sum of Rs.68,150/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. in the interest of justice.
6. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29.05.2012 made in M.V.C.No.243/2009 by the II Additional Sr.Civil Judge & AMACT-7, Shimoga, is modified. The claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of payment, in addition to Rs.68,150/- which is already awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE KS