IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.6844 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
MAHENDRA S/O KEMPEGOWDA @ PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, KORENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.N.SURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GANGAPPA S/O MARAPPA, MAJOR, NO.68, JAKKASANDRA, DASANAPURA, NELAMANGALA – 562 123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.KA-46-206).
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MYTHRI ARCHADE 1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, ... APPELLANT MYSORE – 570 001, POLICY NO.3003/64493476/00600) PERIOD FROM 27.4.2011 TO 26.4.2012 3. DINESH S/O KEMPEGOWDA, MAJOR, LAKSHMI LAYOUT, G.B.PALYA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 067. (OWNER OF KA-03-C-2803) 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE – 570 001.
POLICY NO.67030231110200003903) PERIOD FROM 19.8.2011 TO 18.2.2012 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.P.S.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 AND R3 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.696/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, 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:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal claiming enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation under the judgment and award dated 23.07.2014 in M.V.C.No.696/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Channarayapatna.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 21.12.2011, when the claimant was traveling with his relatives in Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-03-C-2803, the driver of the tata sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-46-206. Due to which, the claimant suffered injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to S.S.M. Hospital at Hassan. It is stated that the claimant was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Respondent No.2 – Insurer appeared and filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tata sumo, in which the claimant was traveling. It is also stated that the driver of the tata sumo had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2 apart from marking documents at Exs.P1 to P154. Respondents examined RW-1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
3. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads:
Sl.No. Description Amount in Rs.
The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, prays for enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 4 – Insurer. Perused the materials on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation is on the lower side when compared to the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant and further submitted that the Tribunal failed to asses the whole body disability; that the claimant has suffered five injuries out of which the claimant has suffered fracture of right hand 4th and 5th metacarpal neck and fracture of left hand 3rd and 4th metacarpal base. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered disability to an extent of 30% to the right hand and 16% disability to the left hand. But the Tribunal failed to asses the whole body disability. Further learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads is on the lower side and submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head amenities. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - Insurer submitted that it is just compensation and needs no interference. He submits that the claimant has not suffered major injuries and there is no surgery or operation. The injuries suffered would not result in the disability as stated by PW-2 – Doctor. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and needs no interference. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, the only point that arise for consideration is:-
“1. Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?”
Answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons:
8. The accident occurred on 21.12.2011 involving a tata sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-03-C-2803 and lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-46-206 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has suffered the following five injuries:
(1) Upper left lateral incisor tooth loss;
(2) Concussive head injury;
(3) Soft tissue face injury;
(4) Right hand 4th and 5th metacarpal neck fracture (displaced) (5) Left hand 3rd and 4th metacarpal base fracture.
9. He has placed on record Ex.P6 – Wound Certificate and Ex.P12 – Summary Report to establish the injuries suffered and treatment taken. The doctor, who was examined on behalf of the claimant states that the claimant has suffered 30% disability to the right hand and 16% disability to the left hand. But he has not stated what is the whole body disability suffered due to the disability of particular limb. But looking to the nature of injuries suffered and treatment taken, the doctor’s evidence cannot be of much help to the appellant. The Tribunal has rightly not assessed the whole body disability looking to the nature of injuries, which needs no interference.
10. Looking to the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient and nature of injuries suffered, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life. Further, claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- in addition to what is awarded under the head of nutrition and nourishment charges. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:-
Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The judgment and award dated 23.07.2014 in M.V.C.No.696/2012 passed by the Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Channarayapatna is modified to the above extent.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-