IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR M.F.A.NO.815/2017(MV) BETWEEN:
LAKSHMANA H S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED 20 YEARS, R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI & POST RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 109.
(BY SMT KALPANA P V, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO LTD., SM TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-41.
2. SMT. N ROOPASHREE W/O P SHIVAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR JATHIN MOTOR SERVICE NO. 369/C, 5TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH ) …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09/12/2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3107/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-13) 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:
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent no.1.
2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned Counsels.
3. The short point that is required to be addressed by this Court is whether the sum awarded by the Tribunal is a just and reasonable compensation?
4. The facts are not in dispute. The factum of accident and the manner in which the injuries were caused and the injuries suffered are also not in dispute. The only point that is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the disability certificate issued by the doctor who has been examined as PW-2 has not been properly appreciated and no compensation is awarded under the head loss of future income.
5. The said contention is opposed by the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 on the ground that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the injured and the nature of injury and has deemed it not appropriate to award any compensation under the head loss of future income. He would submit that the injury to the radius of the left upper limb is a fracture and keeping in view the age of the victim, the fracture would definitely be cured and would not have resulted in any disability.
6. The Tribunal after considering the contention advanced, has observed that the injury suffered will not cause any functional disability, but in the same breath and in the same paragraph, it has taken into consideration the inconvenience that would be faced by the claimant on account of the fracture in performing the acts of lifting heavy weights. It has also taken note of the fact that the claimant-appellant was employed in the customer service at Platinum Wine Yard and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.
7. If that be the case that has been accepted by the Tribunal, then the Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, ought to have awarded a reasonable compensation under the said head. In the opinion of this Court, a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities would not amount to a just compensation. In that view, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal could be disposed off by awarding a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- over and above the sum awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of global compensation over and above the sum awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,20,500/- rounded off to Rs.1,20,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. The sum awarded by way of global compensation will not carry any interest. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-SL