IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3940/2013 (MV) BETWEEN SHRI K R MUNEGOWDA S/O SRI K P RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.31, KUNTANAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (PERNAMENT ADDRESS) R/AT VENKATESH BUILDING 2ND CROSS, NEAR RAILWAY GATE KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA POST BANGALORE-560092 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO 41, 2ND FLOOR CRISTU COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD BANGALORE-560001 2. MR ARUN KUMAR R., S/O RAVI KUAMR M., MAJOR R/AT NO.127, BLOCK-M TYPE LEVEL G/C, CRPF, YALAHANKA BANGALORE-560 064 (BY SRI E I SANMATHI FOR R1 ) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7933/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Though this appeal listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is by the claimant directed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 passed in MVC No.7933/2011 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,34,114/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is the contention of the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequacy, hence, he prayed to award the compensation suitably.
3. It is evident from the claim petition that on 07.08.2011 at about 5.50 p.m., when the appellant was crossing Bangalore-Doddaballapura main road near Wheel and Axel Company bus Stop, Yelahanka, Bangalore, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/EQ-8022. Due to impact he fell down and has sustained the following injuries.
a) Abnormal mobility over the lower 1/3rd of right leg;
b) Fracture of both bones of right leg.
Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital at Yelahanka, thereafter he was shifted to Ashwini Hospital and treated as inpatient for about 9 days. The Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary also reveal that he had spent Rs.60,414/- towards medical expenses. In support of his case he got himself examined as PW1 and examined the PW2-Doctor and also got marked documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P16. According to the claimant he has suffered whole body disability at 20.1% and it is causing lot of pain and agony even to this day. Without considering all these aspects the Tribunal awarded the meager compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards loss of income during laid up period, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and medical expenses. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record which clearly establishes that the appellant was under continuous treatment for nearly four months. She further contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, she submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on proper perception therefore, it requires intervention of the impugned judgment award.
5. On the other hand, Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire material available on record and awarded a just and reasonable compensation and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. There is no dispute with regard to accidental injuries suffered by the claimant. It is also not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and as per X-rays marked at Ex.P16 there is fracture of both bones of right leg and implants were fixed. As per the evidence of PW2-Doctor the disability is of permanent in nature and the said disability affects the appellant’s future avocation. The Insurance Company has not lead any evidence to contradict the case of the claimant before the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons if another sum of Rs.69,500/- is awarded as globally to the claimant, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs.69,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization in addition to the sum of Rs.2,34,114/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The 1st respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*