IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8444 OF 2016 (MV) Between:
Keshav Patil K.G.
S/o late K.V. Gundappa Aged about 21 years r/at No.12, Mulkatamma Nilaya MSV Network Road Amruthahalli, Sahakarnagar Post Bengaluru 560 092 (by Shri Jwala Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. Syed Aslam No.597, First Floor ‘A’ Block, 5th Mai Road Behind BESCOM Office Sahakaranagar Bengaluru 560 092 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. TP-HUB, Subharam Complex M.G. Road Bengaluru 560 001 (by Shri Venkatesh R. Bhagat and Shri Vinith V. Bhagat, Advocates for R2) …Appellant …Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motors Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2016 passed in MVC No.1630 of 2015 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, the petitioner made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City. The Tribunal, by its order dated 25th July 2016 passed in MVC No.1630 of 2015 awarded the compensation of Rs.7,70,000/-. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has taken lesser income and not the claimed income. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in not taking permanent disability at 25.55% as assessed by the Doctor and has taken it at 17%. He also submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening negligence at 25% on the appellant. Hence, he prays for enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sound and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-Insurance Company and gone through the judgment. It is observed that the claimant, though has claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but has not produced any proof to that effect or has examined the employer. In that view of the matter when the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, the same cannot be found fault with. Further, the Tribunal, considering the nature of injury and also the agony undergone by the claimant, has awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.25,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Taking the laid-up period as five months, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/- under the head loss of income during the laid-up period; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities; and Rs.25,000/-
each under the heads Disability, loss of marriage prospects and future medical expenses has been awarded. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.3,31,000/- towards loss of future income and an amount of Rs.1,84,000/- towards medical expenses. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for taking the notional income and also the disability percentage is sound and proper. Further, at paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Tribunal has also observed that the Petitioner has proved that that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle; as also the respondent has proved that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to the extent of 25%, and hence, fastened 25% liability on the petitioner. Considering from any angle, the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn