IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2543/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
MR. IBRAHIM S/O MOIDU KUNHI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT GOONADKA HOUSE AND POST SAMPAJE VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, D K.
(BY SRI.P KARUNAKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. RAJA MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O V S JAGAR ALI R/O NO.108 OF RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA HEMANTH NAGAR MARATH HALLI BANGALORE-560037.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, XI, 198 MANJUNATHA COMPLEX IIND FLOOR, C M H ROAD INDIRA NAGARA BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT 3. B GOVARDHANA S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA NO.1/86, ARANTHODU VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, D K.
4. DIVISONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE, D K.
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. K.N. SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R4 …RESPONDENTS NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R1 & R3) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1851/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K., 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 The appellant/claimant is in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 23.07.2011 passed in MVC No.1851/2006 on the file of the Member, MACT, Puttur, D.K.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 23.04.2006 when the claimant was traveling in a Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-21 3211, near Aranthodu Village, a Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03 C 1138 came from Sullia side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Jeep in which the claimant was traveling. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sullia and thereafter to City Hospital, Mangalore. It is stated that the claimant was a businessman and an agriculturist, earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. On issuance of summons, the 1st respondent remained exparte and respondent Nos.2 to 4 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective written statement. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep and also contended that the driver of the Indica Car had no valid and effective driving license to drive a particular class of vehicle as on the date of accident. Respondent No.4 in its written statement contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving by the driver of the Indica Car, but admitted the issuance of the policy. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and common documents Exs.P1 to P37 were marked in MVC Nos.1851 to 1855/2016. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.12,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
1. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 7,000-00 2. Towards medical expenses Rs. 4,000-00 3. Towards attendant charges Rs. 500-00 4. Towards loss of earning Rs. 500-00 5. Towards nutritious food Rs. 500-00 Total Rs. 12,500-00 Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company and learned counsel for 4th respondent. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side when compared to the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant. He submits that the claimant had suffered fracture of 8th and 9th ribs as per Ex.P.5 – wound certificate and he was inpatient from 23.04.2006 to 28.04.2006. Ex.P.6 – the Discharge Summary would indicate the same. Thus he prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Doctor is not examined and as such the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation based on the material on record, which needs no interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arise for consideration is as to “Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case ?” Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons :
The occurrence of the accident on 23.04.2006 involving Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-21 3211 and TATA Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA 03 C 1138, the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. As per Ex.P.5 – the wound certificate the claimant has suffered tenderness and fracture of 8th and 9th ribs. He was inpatient from 23.04.2006 to 28.04.2006. Ex.P.6 would indicate the treatment taken as inpatient by the claimant. The discharge summary would indicate the treatment taken for fracture of 7th and 8th ribs. Looking to the injuries suffered, treatment taken as inpatient, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation. Further the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head loss of amenities, the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards the said head. Thus the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.41,500/- as against to Rs.12,500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
9. By order dated 26.02.2014, delay of 494 days was condoned with a condition that the claimant would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period. Accordingly, the appellant would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 494 days.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms