IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD MFA No.9234/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
MR HEMACHANDRA S/O SHEENA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O JAINARAGUDI BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV. FOR SRI.S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.) ... APPELLANT AND 1. SRI K UMMER FAROOQ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE. K.MAHAMMED R/O H.1-141,KARMALA HOUSE BANNOOR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK DK-574201.
2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD PRABHU BUILDING MAIN ROAD PUTTUR, D.K-574240.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S KRISHNA KISHORE , ADV.FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED) MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1533/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, PUTTUR, D.K., 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:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.2.2012 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur in MVC No.1533/2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.8.2009 at about 9.10 a.m. when the claimant was riding his Honda Activa bearing Registration No.KA- 12-H-8803 from Jainaragudi of Bannur to Puttur and when he reached Haradi Electricity Board Office at Bannur, at that time, a bike bearing Registration No.KA-21-J-3224 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Pragathi Hospital, Puttur. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW-1 and one more witness as PW-2 and two doctors as PW-3 and 4 and submitted 18 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses but has produced 1 document. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,42,700/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal.
3. Smt. Haleema Ameen, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that as per the injury certificate Ex.P-4, the claimant has sustained following injuries:
1) Sutured wound on the right fronto-parietal area of the scalp.
2) Anterior, lateral and medical walls of both maxillary sinuses with hemosinuses.
3) Left nasal bone fracture.
4) Fracture of bilateral zygomatic arches and left zygoma.
5) fracture of hard palate on the left side.
6) Fracture of bilateral lateral walls of orbits.
7) Bilateral pterygoid bones and medical and lateral pterygold plates on both sides.
8) Fracture of body of right mandible involving the symphysis.
9) Fracture of mandibular condyle on the left side.
10) Loss of right central left side central, left side central, lateral incisor canine and first premolar on the lower jaw with dentoalveolar fracture on both jaws.
She further submits that the claimant was earning Rs.6,500/- per month by working as a salesman. But the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month which is on the lower side. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 12 days. He has undergone surgery. There is disfiguration and facial pain. The Tribunal is not justified in granting meager compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head "pain and sufferings" and Rs.25,000/- under the head "loss of amenities" and Rs.7,200/- under the “incidental and attendant expenses”. Further, the doctor has deposed that the claimant requires a sum of Rs.45,000/- for "future medical expenses", but the Tribunal is not justified in granting as merely as Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, she prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature and fractures are united. The Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained the aforesaid injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 1.8.2009. The claimant claims that he was working as a salesman and earning Rs.6,500/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2009, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in assessing the claimant’s income as merely Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the claimant’s income from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month.
7. In view of enhancing the income of the claimant, compensation of Rs.13,500/- granted by the Tribunal under the category of “loss of income during laid up period” is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5,000 X 3 months).
8. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant requires an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards "future medical expenses" for further treatment. But the Tribunal has granted compensation as merely as Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.45,000/- under this head.
9. According to the claimant, after the accident due to the disability, disfiguration and facial pain, he cannot work. Considering that the claimant has sustained multiple fractures, compensation of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head "pain and sufferings" is on the lower side. Therefore, this Court enhances compensation of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- under the said category.
10. Considering the nature of injuries and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- under the category of "loss of amenities".
11. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 12 days in Pragathi Hospital. Considering the duration of treatment, compensation of Rs.7,200/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head “incidental and attendant expenses” is enhanced to Rs.15,700/-.
12. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 25.2.2012 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur in MVC No.1533/2010, stands modified. The claimant is entitled to receive the following compensation:
13. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the claimant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.
Sd/- JUDGE DM