IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7853 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
HEMALATHA @ HEMAVATHI D/O.K. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.44, 1ST ‘C’ CROSS SWATHANTHRAPALYA ‘D’ BLOCK SRIRAMPURA RAMANAGAR – 560021 …APPELLANT (BY SHRI LAKSHMANA R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI ANAND MAJOR S/O. PUTTARAJU R/AT. NO.1, RAJAGOPAL NAGAR PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560058 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP: BY BRANCH MANAGER 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6270/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is presented with delay of 627 days.
2. With the consent of learned advocates on both sides, the same is heard on merits for final disposal.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has urged a solitary ground that compensation awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’ is not adequate.
4. Learned Tribunal has recorded reasons for awarding the compensation and awarded a total compensation of Rs.98,414/-. It is recorded in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the judgment of the tribunal that as per Ex.P6-Wound certificate, claimant has sustained simple injuries. In view of the same, the claimant has undergone treatment as an inpatient for a period of 07 days. No evidence is produced insofar as any surgical intervention or disability. In the circumstances, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.73,414/- towards ‘medical expenses’ by considering the medical bills, and also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities and Conveyance, food and nourishment attendant charges etc.,’ and Thus, in all the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.98,414/-.
5. The ground urged in support of this appeal is that the compensation awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ is inadequate. Compensation towards loss of amenities can be awarded if claimant is unable to carry on his normal daily routine due to the injury suffered. In the instant case, claimant has sustained simple injuries and she has not suffered any disability. However, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc., Hence, no interference is called for in this regard.
6. Sofar as delay is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant has filed an application- I.A.No.1/2016 seeking condonation of delay of 627 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in the application accompanying the affidavit sworn to by the appellant that the appellant was suffering from fever, hence, she was unable to contact her advocate. It is relevant to note that there is a delay of 627 days in filing this appeal. Therefore, the reason that appellant was suffering from fever during the said period is unacceptable in the absence of any medical record.
Resultantly, the application-I.A.No.1/2016 is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the appeal both on merits and delay, the I.A. for condonation of delay as also the appeal are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ