IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.1098 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN Jagannadha Reddy G., S/o Chinnabba Reddy, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.16, AMCO Layout, Near Impact College, Behind Shakthi Kitchen Factory, Kodigehalli, Bangalore – 560 092.
(By Sri.Shripad V Shastri, Advocate) AND The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road, Transportation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State.
... Appellant ... Respondent (By Sri. D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate) This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 20.10.2012 passed in MVC No.5891/2010 on the file of the XXI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
JUDGMENT The claimant - appellant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 20.10.2012 passed in MVC No.5891/2010 on the file of the XXI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
2. The claimant - appellant claims that he sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 06.04.2010, when he was driving a Tata Indica car bearing registration No. KA-50-5049. It is stated that while the claimant was driving the car, APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP- 28-Z-3905 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Due to accident, the claimant – appellant suffered fracture of both bones of right leg. It is stated that he was treated at Tirupathi Government Hospital and later was shifted to BOTH Hospital, Tirupathi. Further, it is stated that the claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month by working as a driver.
3. On service of notice, the respondent - Insurance Company appeared and resisted the petition by filing its written statement denying the claim averments. It is also stated that the accident took place solely due to the negligent driving of the car by the claimant.
4. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material on record both oral and documentary, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,26,745/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit, on the following heads :
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs.1,42,745/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 24,000/-
4. Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000/- Rs.2,26,745/-
5. The injured claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards `disability’ and towards `future loss of earning’.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Co. would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award.
9. The accident occurred on 06.04.2010 involving car bearing registration No. KA-50-5049 and APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP-28-Z-3905 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The grounds urged by the claimant are that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under the head of `disability’ and `loss of future earning’. The material on record would indicate that the claimant has not examined the doctor before the Tribunal to determine the disability suffered by him. The wound certificate produced by the claimant would indicate that he had suffered fracture of both bones of right leg. But due to fracture of his both bones of right leg, the disability suffered by him is not substantiated by examining the doctor who treated him. The claimant was working as a driver and after the accident also, he continues to drive the vehicle and he is earning more than what he was earning earlier to the accident, as per the evidence on record. Therefore, he would not be entitled for compensation under the head of `future loss of earning’. But looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and as he was inpatient for about 10 days, he would be entitled for enhancement of compensation on the head of `pain and suffering’, `nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges’ and `loss of amenities’. A global compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded on those heads.
10. Thus, the appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-