IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.5928/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
K.P. JAYARAMEGOWDA S/O PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR KUNIGAL DEPOT R/O KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE SHETTIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572214.
(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX BUS STAND, HASSAN-573201.
2. H.S. RAMESH S/O S.R. SUBRAHAMANI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NO.54/6, M.H.B. COLONY RAVINDRANAGARA HASSAN, PIN:573 201.
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1 R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1192/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 19TH MACT, ITINERATE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, 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 claimant is before this Court in this appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 04.04.2013 passed in MVC No.1192/2009 on the file of the Itinerate Court of the Senior Civil Judge and XIX Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkanayakanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 11.03.2008, while the claimant was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06/F-0370, a lorry bearing registration NO.KA-21/B-6877 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the KSRTC bus, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant was initially shifted to Government hospital, Kunigal. The claimant is a driver of the KSRTC bus and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m.
3. Upon service of summons, respondent No.1/insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the claim petition averments contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus. Further, it was contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.
4. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as C.W.1 apart from marking the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C.2.
5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.59,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization on the following heads:
1. Pain and suffering :: Rs.46,000
Total Rs.59,700 The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent/Insurer. Perused the appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side when compared to the injuries suffered by the claimant The claimant suffered following injuries:
1. Deformity injury to the left fore arm with fracture of both bone;
2. Range of movement of the left forearm;
3. COU wound with bleed on left forehead;
4. Tenderness over the chest; and 5. Range of movement of the left knee joint.
8. It is submitted that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 17 days on two intervals. The compensation awarded on various heads are on the lower side when compared to the treatment taken as inpatient. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation. It is his further contention that C.W.1- Doctor examined on behalf of the claimant has not stated with regard to disability suffered by the claimant. It is also on record that the claimant has continued as driver of KSRTC. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Answer to the above question is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 11.03.2008 involving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA06/F-0370 and a lorry bearing registration No.KA-21/B-6877 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has suffered the injuries as stated above. The claimant was inpatient for 17 days on two intervals. He has produced wound certificate-Ex.P4, Ex.P10-discharge card which would indicate the treatment taken by the claimant. The C.W.1-doctor in his evidence has deposed that the claimant has suffered 35% disability to the limb and whole body disability around 12%, however, in the cross-examination, the doctor has admitted that the wound is healed. Further, it has come on record that the claimant is continued as driver in the KSRTC where he was working prior to the accident. There is no functional disability as such. The claimant has suffered fracture of both bones of left forearm, movement of the left forearm is restricted as per the evidence of C.W.1. Looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant, he would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of amenities. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the said head. Considering the injuries suffered by him, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the head loss of amenities. As stated above, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 17 days on two intervals. The compensation awarded on the head of attendant charges calculating Rs.100/- per day for 7 days is on the lower side against which, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- in addition to Rs.59,700/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 04.04.2013 passed in MVC No.1192/2009 on the file of the Itinerate Court of Senior Civil Judge and XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanalli is modified to the above extent, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms