IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.5682 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
M.NAGARAJAIAH S/O V.MARYAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.41. 6TH MAIN ,14TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, MICO LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 067 (BY SRI.GURULINGAIAH T.R., ADV.) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. SHIVARAJU S/O RAMAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS R/AT SANGABASAVANA DODDI VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI (POST) KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK & DIST – 571 511 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KSCME BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, NO.8,CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 52 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:9.4.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3001/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & 26TH ACMM, (SCCH-09), BENGALURU, 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 The claimant preferred claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 04th March, 2014. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore by its judgment and award dated 09th April 2015 passed in MVC No.3001 of 2014 awarded compensation of Rs.12,20,000/- with 6% interest per annum. Being not satisfied with the award amount, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount towards future loss of income. The compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and happiness in life is also on the lower side. He submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and seeks enhancement suitably.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on the documentary and oral evidence adduced and the same is just and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal. Hence he submits to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. The accident is not in dispute and the amputation of the right leg before of the injuries suffered in the accident is also not in dispute. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel. Though the learned counsel contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future loss of income, it has come in the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the petitioner is earning pension, there is no loss in income and hence has not awarded any amount under that head. But, as regards the submission of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is concerned, the same has to be visited with. It to be observed that the right leg of the appellant has been amputated and at this age, the appellant has to walk on prosthesis which is a herculean task. Considering the agony to be undergone by the appellant, I am inclined to award another Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Similarly, taking note of the trauma that the appellant had to undergo for the rest of his life, another Rs.75,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. Though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head future medical expenses, but considering the fact that the appellant may develop future problem, I am inclined to award another Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. In total, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.2,50,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn