IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.3106/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
MR. MARIMADAIAH @ MHADEVAPPA S/O RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OLD ADDRESS AT:
58, 4TH CROSS KALIDASA LAYOUT BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004.
PRESENT R/AT NO.910 4TH MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 050.
(BY SRI. M R KUMARASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. MR. KAILASH S/O MADIAH KUNDUR VILLAGE & POST MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DIST-571 430.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MARATHAHALLI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-11 NO.86/80, 2ND FLOOR ...APPELLANT MAIN ROAD, MARATHAHALLI BANGALURU-560 037.
(BY SRI K.N. SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R2 R1- NOTICE D/W V/O DT:11.06.2015) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6922/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 12.08.2014 passed in MVC No.6922/2012 on the file of the 19th Additional Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, praying for enhancement of compensation.
2. The accident occurred on 10.10.2012 involving Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA.11.A.1906 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal based on the material placed before it awarded total
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurer and perused the material on record.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as to ‘Whether the claimant would be entitled to enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?’ The said point is answered partly in the affirmative for the following reasons :-
The claimant has placed on record Ex.P7 the wound certificate and Ex.P.8 – the discharge summary which would disclose the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment taken by him. The claimant has sustained lacerated wound over right foot and toe exposing muscles and bones, fracture to the right leg, fracture to the lower end of right fibula and fracture to the medial malleolus of right tibia and fracture to the mid phalynx of right great toe and fracture to the upper end of 2nd, 3rd, 4th metatarsal bone and also fracture to the lower end of 5th metatarsal bone. The claimant took treatment as inpatient for 15 days. But the claimant has not examined the Doctor in support of his case. In the absence of Doctor’s evidence the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
5. Admittedly, the claimant has suffered the injuries as stated above. Looking to the injuries sustained treatment taken as inpatient, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head ‘loss of amenities’ and a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the head ‘Food and Nourishment’ 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- in addition to Rs.1,38,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*CT:bms