IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA M.F.A.No.8491/2010 (MVC) BETWEEN:
MR. JOSEPH SYLVESTER D’SOUZA S/O LATE CASMIR D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS T/AT LE CHATEAU 1ST CROSS, JEPPU BAPPAL, KANKANADY POST MANGALORE – 575 002 (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. LEX JUSTICIA, ADVs.) AND:
1. MR. JOHN D’SOUZA S/O DAVID D’SOUZA ADULT R/AT JOHNSON VILLA BALLI COMPOUND ASHOK NAGARA,MANGALORE 2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ...APPELLANT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANGALORE, EMJAYS COMPLEX OPPOSITE NETHRAVATHI BUILDING BALMATTA, MANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.05.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.481/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, 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:
J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
2. The claimant is in appeal challenging the judgment and Award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, (for Short ‘Tribunal”) D.K., Mangalore in MVC No.481/2008.
2. The facts in brief are that the claimant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident, which occurred on 06.12.2007 alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-19-A-9974.
3. On service of notice, the contesting respondent-insurer appeared and resisted the claim. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `1,58,500/ with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned Counsel Smt. Neeraja Karanth, appearing for the claimant would contend that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is meager and disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the evidence of the doctor and the disability certificate as per Ex.P.35, while computing the loss of income on account of permanent disability, thus she seeks for enhancement of compensation.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri.
Janardhana Reddy, appearing for Respondent No.2-the insurer, justifying the impugned judgment and award would contend that the Tribunal after extensively analyzing the record, awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which do not call for interference by this court.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the claimant was aged about 79 years at the time of the accident. Considering the same, the Tribunal determined the notional income at `30,000/- p.a. though, the claimant examined PW3-Dr. Suresh Mankar, who assessed the permanent disability at 15% to the whole body, due to the head injury, was considered to be an exaggeration and disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal assessed the physical disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body. Considering the facts situation of the case, awarded a total compensation of `1,58,500/- under different heads.
7. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case , this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by modifying and enhancing the compensation to `1,75,000/- as against `1,58,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to `1,75,000/- as against `1,58,500/- which carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*