IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2771/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.172, KANCHIGANALA DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560057.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADV.) AND:
1. MANJUNATHA MAJOR S/O MUNISHAMAPPA MANCHANABALE VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-560052.
2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD PARTY CLAIMS HUB KRISHI BHAVAN, VI FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2, R1 SD) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2683/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Claimant is in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22.11.2014 in MVC No.2683/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) praying for enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 01.12.2011, when the claimant was proceeding along with one Krishnappa in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/H-1123, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-40/K-9610 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant’s motorcycle, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that as on the date of accident, he was aged 53 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., as an agriculturist.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 appeared and filed its written statement denying the entire claim petition averments. Further it is contended that the rider of the offending motorcycle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, however, they admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle.
4. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.3 doctor apart from marking common documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 in MVC Nos.2683-2684 of 2012. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was lead.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads:
1. Pain and sufferings :: Rs.1,00,000.00 2. Loss of amenities & happiness :: Rs. 60,000.00 3. Medical and incidental charges :: Rs.2,15,000.00 4. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment :: Rs. 25,000.00 5. Loss of future earnings due to disability :: Rs.1,56,000.00 Total Rs.5,56,000.00 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m., and assessed the whole body disability at 20%. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- p.m., is on the lower side and he submits that, as an agriculturist, the claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. Taking note of the standard of living in the year 2011, he submits that higher income is to be assessed. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment, to which, the claimant would be entitled since he was inpatient for a period of 54 days. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurer submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Further he submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 20% to the whole body is proper and correct, which also needs no interference.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
10. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 01.12.2011 involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/H-1123 and another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-40/K- 9610 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has also not disputed the assessment of whole body disability at 20% by the Tribunal. It is stated that the claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., as an agriculturist. He was aged about 53 years as on the date of accident. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- p.m., is on the lower side. Even a coolie would have earned more than Rs.200/- per day in the year 2011. Taking note of the same and as this Court and Lok Adalath, while settling the accident claims of the year 2011, would normally assess notional income of Rs.6,500/- p.m. In the present case also, in the absence of any material to indicate to exact income of the claimant, it would be appropriate to assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- p.m.
11. The claimant has suffered injuries i.e., Grade III Compound communited fracture of tibia and fibula right leg with vascular insult, Grade-III compound communited fracture right femoral lateral condyle, Grade III compound communited fracture of proximal phalanx of middle finger. For the said treatment, he was inpatient from 01.12.2011 to 24.01.2012 at Deeksha hospital. The claimant has placed on record Ex.P7-discharge summary and Ex.P6-wound certificate which would indicate the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient and the injuries suffered by him. Looking to the nature of injuries and pain and sufferings undergone and the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient, I am of the view that the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on the head attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment. Further, as the claimant’s income is assessed at Rs.6,500/- p.m., the claimant would be entitled for loss of earning during the period of treatment at the rate of Rs.6,500/- for about 5 months which comes to Rs.32,500/-. Hence, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:
1.Pain and suffering ::Rs.1,00,000/-
2.Loss of amenities and happiness ::Rs. 60,000/-
3.Medical and incidental charges ::Rs.2,15,500/-
4.Loss of earning during the period of treatment (6500x5) ::Rs. 32,500/-
5.Loss of future earning due to disability 6500x12x13x20/100 ::Rs.2,02,800/-
6.Attendant charges, conveyance, food, and nourishment ::Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.6,30,800/-
Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,30,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. as against Rs.5,56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 22.11.2014 passed in MVC No.2683/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes, Bangalore is modified to the above extent. Thereby the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.74,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms