IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.591 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
LAKSHMEESHA S/O SOMYYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O BOLANTHILA HOUSE 34 NEKKILADY HOUSE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 201. (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADV.) AND ... APPELLANT 1. MAHAVERA PATILA S/O JAYAPALA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O VIDYANAGARA GALLI BASTHVADA HALAGA BELAGUM TALUK AND DISTRICT-590 001.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, KENGAL HANUMANTHA ROAD BANGALORE-560027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 APPEAL AGAINST R-1 IS DISMISSED V/O 15.3.2017) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.6.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.684/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K., 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:
JUDGMENT The appellant is before this Court, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment and award dated 27.06.2013 in M.V.C.No.684/2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.05.2010. It is stated that on 26.05.2010 at about 3.30 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2177, driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the electric pole. Due to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and he was treated at Omega Hospital at Mangalore for five days. It is stated that the claimant was doing business and earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.2- Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the averments of the claim petition. It is further stated that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Doctor PW.2 in support of his case apart from marking documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. Respondent No.2-Corporation examined RW-1 and RW-2 and marked two documents Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
5. The Tribunal on assessing the entire material on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.78,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., to the claimant. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation. Perused the entire records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of future income’ by assessing the income and taking into consideration the disability suffered by the claimant. Further, he submits that the income taken at Rs.100/- per day by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is his submission that the compensation awarded on the head of ‘medical expenses’ is on the lower side compared to the bill produced by the claimant. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference.
9. The accident is of the year 2010. The claimant states that he was doing business and earning Rs.12,000/- per month by his business. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3000/-, which is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok Adalath, while settling the accident claims of the year 2010 would normally take the notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month. In the case on hand also, in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income, it would be appropriate to take the notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month.
10. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are receipts and Ex.P.6 is medical bills. Even though the medical bills produced by the claimant was to the tune of Rs.25,154/-, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Looking into the bills which are genuine, the claimant would be entitled to another Rs.15,154/- in addition to Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal on the head of ‘medical expenses’. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of ‘loss of amenities’, for which he would be entitled for Rs.30,000/-. The claimant has suffered injuries of compound fracture of lower end of left humerus and fracture of left fibula which are grievous in nature. Looking into the injuries suffered, the claimant would be definitely out of avocation for a minimum period of three months. Taking into consideration the income of the appellant at Rs.5,500/- per month, he would be entitled to Rs.16,500/- under the head of ‘loss of income during the treatment period’. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified enhanced compensation:-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and Suffering 20,000 2. Loss of income during treatment period 16,500 3. Medical Expenses 25,154 4. Doctor fees 28,000 5. Food, Conveyance during treatment as inpatient 10,000
11. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,39,654/- as against the compensation of Rs.78,800/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award is modified to the above extent.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR