IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.7717/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
KUNHU LAKSHMI @ LAXMAMMA W/O VENUGOPAL K AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DHARAPURA VILLAGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159.
(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K, ADV.) AND:
1. SOMASHEKARA RAO S/O DHARMA RAO SINDI MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.56 PUSHPA NIVAS VIVEKANANDA NAGAR RAMANAGARA TOWN PIN - 562 159.
... APPELLANT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR GIRIYAMMA SHAMBUGOWDA COMPLEX CHURCH ROAD CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K N SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R2 R1 – NOTICE D/W V/O DT:28.11.2017) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.392/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, 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 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 in MVC No.392/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimant/injured filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that, on 03.10.2013, when the claimant along with her husband were returning home on their motorcycle, a car bearing registration No.KA.03/MB-0068 came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to which, the claimant who was pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was treated at BGS Global hospital, wherein she took treatment as inpatient for a period of 6 days and underwent surgery. It is stated that she has spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses.
3. The second respondent/insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement admitting the issuance of insurance policy, however denied all other claim petition averments. It is also stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and not due to negligence of the driver of the car.
4. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2, apart from marking the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. However, the respondents have neither examined any witnesses nor marked the documents.
5. The Tribunal, on analyzing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,41,622/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., taking monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- and whole body disability to an extent of 5%. The appellant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused the appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- p.m. is on the lower side. It is stated that the accident is of the year 2013 and the Tribunal ought to have taken minimum of Rs.8,000/- p.m., as income of the injured. It is further stated that the Tribunal has taken only 5% disability to the whole body as against the evidence of doctor who assessed the disability at 13%, without there being any basis. It is also stated that the compensation awarded under various heads are also on the lower side.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the Tribunal rightly has taken the whole body disability at 5% and further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate which needs no interference.
9. The accident is of the year 2013 and the assessment of the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-
p.m. is on the lower side. The claimant/injured states that she was doing agricultural work and also doing milk vending and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. This Court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2013 would normally take notional income of Rs.8,000/- p.m. In the instant case also, the claimant has not produced any document to indicate her exact income. Hence in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant, notional income of the claimant could be assessed at Rs.8,000/-
p.m. Further, the Tribunal has taken whole body disability at 5%. The doctor-P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to whole body to an extent of 13%. The Tribunal, considering the evidence and medical records has rightly taken 5% disability to the whole body. It is observed by the Tribunal that the doctor has not deposed with regard to functional disability. Hence, the finding on the said aspect is proper and needs no interference. Further, the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side. Looking to the injuries suffered and as the claimant was inpatient for a period of 6 days, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified enhanced compensation:
(8500x12x15x5/100) -------------------
Total :: Rs.2,22,822.00 Hence, the claimant would be entit-l-e--d----f-o--r m--o--dified
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 in MVC No.392/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced modified compensation of Rs.2,22,822/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms