IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.3795 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
JAIBHEEMA S/O.LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT No.20, 14TH MAIN MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.NO.6, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI RAMAKRISHNA MAJOR R/AT NO.45, 4TH CROSS R.J.NAGARA MAIN ROAD OPP: TO SHIVA BAR PEENYA 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-58 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N.* NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * Corrected vide Court Order dated: 12.07.2017.
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1100/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 11TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, 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 Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated:18.11.2011 made in MVC No.1100/2010 passed by the Court of Small Causes (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court below’), Bangalore City, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 22.4.2009 at about 02:00 p.m., while he was waiting for the bus near Pepsi company bus stop on Bidadi-Bangalore main road, at that time a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-H-7376 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. Due to that he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Bharath Nursing Home, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore. In the accident he has sustained fracture of neck of femur of left side, fracture of 1/3rd of left femur, swelling over right and left leg, abrasion over abdomen and other injuries to the body. He has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 58 days. Prior to the accident, he was working as an electrician and earning a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month. In view of the injuries sustained in the accident, he is permanently disabled to do the work of an electrician. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. Insurance company defended the case by filing written statement.
4. After trial, the court below held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, the accident occurred and the claimant is entitled for compensation.
5. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though, the doctor who had treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 19.20% to the whole body, the Court below while computing the compensation towards loss of future income has taken the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body. Taking into consideration income of the claimant at Rs.3,500/- per month, considering disability at 10% and applying multiplier of ‘18’ awarded a compensation of Rs.75,600/- towards loss of future earning. Further, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income during treatment period, a sum of Rs.2,15,600/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment and diet etc., and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medication. In all, a sum of Rs.3,66,700/- with interest at 6% per annum was awarded as compensation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
6. The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Ashok N.*Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the judgment and award as well as oral and documentary evidence.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred in the year 2009 and the income of Rs.3,500/- assessed by the court below for the purpose of computation of loss of future earning is on the lower side. Even the daily wage workers working in various * Corrected vide Court Order dated: 12.07.2017.
Government Department, the income being taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. With regard to disability is concerned, the court below ought to have taken 100% disability while awarding the compensation. Further, the compensation awarded towards loss of amenities of life, loss of income during laid up period and attendant, conveyance nourishment charges is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
9. On perusal of the wound certificate and other relevant records, it is clear that the claimant has sustained fracture of neck of femur of left side, fracture of 1/3rd of left femur, swelling over right and left leg, abrasion over abdomen and other injuries to the body. Injuries sustained to the neck of femur and fracture of 1/3rd of left femur are grievous in nature. The claimant has undergone surgery and he was inpatient for a period of 58 days. Hence, taking into consideration all these aspects, reckoning the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, taking the disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body and as he was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident, applying multiplier of ‘18’, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss of future earning as against Rs.75,600/- awarded by the court below. The claimant was out of employment for a period of two months. A sum of Rs.10,500/- awarded towards loss of income during laid up period is on the lower side. Hence, the claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs.5,000/- under the said head. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 58 days and a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards attendant charges by the court below is on the lower side. Hence, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment and diet etc. Further, the claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability he has sustained in the accident. Therefore, another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life, in addition to a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the court below. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,11,400/- in addition to compensation awarded by the court below.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated: 18.11.2011 made in MVC No.1100/2010 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore city is hereby modified and the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,11,400/- with interest at 6% per annum in addition to a sum of Rs.3,66,700/- awarded by the court below.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ