IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY M.F.A.No. 11506/2011 (MV) BETWEEN :
H.THIPPARAJU, S/O HONNAPPA 53 YEARS R/AT NO 87, ANUSUYA ASHRAM COMPLEX, 3RD MAIN INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 044. ... APPELLANT (By Sri.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO LTD., NO 105 A, CEARS PLAZA, I LOOR 136, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025 2. PRABHAKAR T.S. MAJOR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT S/O SHIVAPPA, NO 609, SHARAVATHI BLOCK, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560027. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.H.R.RENUKA, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE DISPENSED TO R-2 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.6.2018) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.01.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.3106/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10) (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for short), by its judgment and award dated 15.01.2010 in MVC No.3106/2008.
2. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal.
3. The case of the claimant in the Tribunal is that on 16.01.2008 at about 4.45 p.m, when he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 03 EK 7292 on Race Course Road, Madhavanagara and Vishwanatha Rao Road junction in Bengaluru, on account of rash and negligent driving of a Maruthi Van bearing registration No.KA 01 MA 9719 by its driver, a road traffic accident occurred, in which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He underwent surgical operation and was bed ridden for a long time. He has also stated that at the time of accident, he was working as Manager in RAR Enterprises, Bengaluru and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, due to the accident, he has incurred loss mentally, physically and financially, towards which he has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 being the insurer and owner of the alleged offending vehicle.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal.
6. The present appeal being the claimant’s appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondent No.1 to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re- analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. After analyzing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:
Loss of earning during laid off period Amount (Rs.) 15,000/-
8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’. Considering the nature of the injury, more particularly fracture of left lateral malleolus with soft tissue swelling, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a bit lesser than a reasonable quantum and deserves to be enhanced. As such, to bring it to a reasonable compensation, I enhance the said compensation towards ‘pain and suffering’ by a additional sum of Rs.5,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of income during the laid up period’ even though the medical documents which is the discharge-cum-ID card at Ex.P7, OPD card at Ex.P8 and medical certificate at Ex.P12 show that he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days. However, considering the nature of injuries, the contention of the claimant as PW-1 that he was bed ridden for a period of eight months, though not be accepted in toto, but, at the same time, cannot be confined only just for 21 days. As such, in the circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of injuries, the said period of rest is required to be taken as three months, in which an event, ‘towards loss of earning during laid up period of rest’ the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which is in addition to the compensation already awarded under the same head.
10. Towards ‘loss of amenities’ the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature of the occupation which the claimant is pursuing and the loss of amenities which he is suffering due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the compensation under the said head requires to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
11. The compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of expectation of life and medical expenses’ does not call for any enhancement in the circumstances of the case. However, the compensation awarded towards ‘travelling and other sundry expenses’ requires an enhancement by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. At the same time, it also cannot be ignored that for the laid up period, since the claimant was required to be attended to by an attendant, the claimant has incurred expenses towards the same, which the Tribunal has not considered. As such, ‘towards attendant charges’ I award a compensation of Rs.6,000/-.
12. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads.
13. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six thousand Only), which is in addition to the compensation of Rs.2,31,320/- awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10) in MVC No. 3106/2008 dated 15.01.2010 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.2,31,320/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.56,000/-, thus fixing the total compensation at Rs. 2,87,320/- (Rupees Two lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Three hundred and Twenty only).
The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondent and the terms regarding deposit of the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.
Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.