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.8224 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT.H.M.BHARATHI D/O. LATE. H M MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS, SANNAKIBAYALU, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.HARISHA.C S/O. CHIKKABASAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT NO.3, 11TH CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BYDARAHALLI, NEAR KEB JUNCTION, BANGALORE – 560 091, (OWNER OF THE SUZUKI BEARING NO.KA.02-JC-4574) 2. IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. SERVICE CENTER, SRI. SHANTHI TOWER, 5TH FLOOR, NO. 141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. (POLICY NO. 1-4 F1 SK6400/96812279 VALID FROM 02.03.2016 TO 01.03.2017) (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
... RESPONDENTS 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:30.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3065/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-23), 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 Notice to respondent No.1 dispensed with. Submission accepted.
2. For having suffered accidental injuries, the appellant made claim before the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 30th June 2017 passed in MVC No.3065 of 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.2,28,478/- fixing 20% negligence on the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,82,782/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement in the Compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the meagre side. The compensation awarded under different heads calls for enhancement. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal by suitably enhancing the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on the oral, documentary and material evidence placed before it and hence the same does not call for interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Accident is not in dispute. In the accident in question appellant sustained fracture of neck of femur, fracture of left wrist for which she has underwent surgery for which she was inpatient for more than thirteen days. It is claimed in the petition that the appellant was the Proprietrix of the M/s. Spoorty Enterprises and was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. Since the income is not proved by producing any documentary evidence, the court shall take the notional income. With relevance to the accident of the year 2016, this court consistently assess the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of future income comes to Rs.10,000 x 12 x 14 x 13% = Rs.2,18,400/- and the same is awarded. The petitioner being a lady and has to put along with the pain and agony throughout, I am inclined to award another Rs.10,000/- under the head pain and suffering; and an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards amenities. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remain unaltered. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.2,43,400/-. Further, instead of awarding interest to the enhanced amount, I am of the opinion that suffice it would if a global amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded in the interests of justice.
Accordingly, Rs.3,00,000/- global compensation is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn