IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.3986 of 2016 (MV) BETWEEN: MR. LAXMAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O M.MANI, TAILOR R/O ALAPE PADAVU DOTTA HOUSE NAGURI, PADIL P.O.
MANGALORE – 575 005 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.SANDESH SHETTY.T., ADV.) AND:
1. MR.HAULATH W/O MR.MOHAMMED.D D.NO.4-70, SAMIRA MANZIL MALAR KODI, P.O. HAREKALA KONAJE, MANGALORE – 574 199 2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, IFFCO TOWER PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 29 GURGAON – 122 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.154/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA 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 that took place on 26th June 2011 when the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA 19 U 3217 from Mangalore towards Thokottu, near Adamkudru Jeppinamogaru on NH 17, the car bearing Regn. No.KA 19 MB 3026 came from Thokuttu side in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, the impact of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and had made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 15th September 2015 passed in MVC No.154 of 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.13,26,600/- with 6% interest per annum. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering is on the lower side. He submits that the amount awarded towards hospitalisation is also on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities is also on the meager side. He further submits that though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has disbelieved the same and has assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Hence, he submits that, in all, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary or material evidence, has taken the income of the appellant at Rs.7,000/- per month. In total, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and there is no ground for interference in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award of the Tribunal. In the accident, the appellant has suffered following injuries:
1. Lacerated wound measuring 4 cms x 2 cms bone deep, obliquely paced over the anterior aspect of right leg in its middle one third;
2. Tenderness and swelling over the right leg with underlying fracture of tibia and fibula bone in its middle one third on right leg;
3. Cerebral concussion with cerebral oedema and sub arachnoids hemorrhages in both parietal and temporal lobes of the brain;
4. Sub dural hemorrhages present in the brain with multiple contusion over the brain;
5. Extra dural hemorrahages present over the left frontal area of the brain;
6. Fracture of parietal bone on both sides and squamous part of temporal bone on both sides (skull bone) 7. Fracture of lateral wall of both orbits and roof of left orbit (facial bone);
8. Tenderness and swelling over the face.
5. Of which, except two injuries, all other six injuries are grievous in nature. Exhibit P1-discharge summary shows that the appellant was inpatient from 26th June to 30th August, 2011 i.e. for 65 days. Exhibit P8 is the disability certificate and Exhibit P10 is the Neuropsychological report issued by the Department of Psychiatry, Father Muller’s Medical College and Hospital which shows that there were multiple skull fracture and cerebral oedema and also open fracture shaft of both bones of right leg. It is also mentioned therein that the appellant complain of forgetfulness, loss of memory, irritability, unable to manager his social and economical responsibilities, difficulty in writing, reading, understanding the oral command and to do his day-to- day routine work and also difficulty in walking. The discharge summary also shows that there is 20 degree terminal restriction of movement of planter flexion at ankle joint and 10 degree terminal restriction of movement of dorsiflexion of ankle joint and has opined that the appellant has suffered 30% disability to the whole body.
6. Though the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence, has given reasoning for taking the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.7,000/- per month, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the age of the appellant, I intend to take the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 14 x 60% = Rs.8,06,400/- rounded off to Rs.8,06,000/- and the same is awarded in lieu of Rs.7,05,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Taking the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- another Rs.6,000/- is awarded under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
7. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, I intend to award another Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the discomfort the appellant has to undergo throughout his life, I award another Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Under the head future medical expenses, another Rs.20,000/- is awarded. In total the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,76,400/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellant. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Lnn