IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5122 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT GOUHER JAN W/O LATE SHEIK AHMED NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.14 PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE AND ALSO R/A NO.25 GOVINDAPURA THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RANGEGOWDA N R, ADV. ) AND:
1. AJAY KUMAR K V S/O VIJAYARANGA SWAMY K G AGED MAJOR NO.24, RAILWAY STATION ROAD TUMKUR – 572 101 2. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. GROUND FLOOR, NO.31, TBR TOWER IST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE BANGALORE – 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:05.01.2017) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.3.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6892/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (DVVH-16), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident on 28th October 2013, the appellant- claimant filed claim petition on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal, by its order dated 15th March 2016 passed in MVC No.6892 of 2013 awarded a compensation of Rs.1,74,785/-. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant is in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the appellant has sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and other injuries and the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering is very meager. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- despite the claimant claiming it at Rs.8,000/- per month. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads also needs to be enhanced.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference at the hands of this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the materials produced before it and also after examining the evidence adduced, has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,19,957/-. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to produce any proof with regard to his age, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded the compensation. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.1,12,320/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability; Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during the laid of period; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of future amenities and happiness. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.13,637/- towards medical expenditure. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation. Be that as it may, considering the discomforts to be undergone by the claimant for the rest of her life, in my considered view, suffice it if another sum of Rs.65,000/- is globally awarded, the same is accordingly awarded. Appeal stands disposed of.
lnn Sd/- JUDGE