IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4908/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
Master Kushal G s/o S T Govindaiah Aged about 17 years r/a No.103, 4th Cross II Main, Lakshmi Nagar Kirloskar Colony Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore-560 079 Present address:
r/a Siddanayakanapalya Hebbur Post, Hebbur Hobli Tumkur Taluk and district PIN Code No.572 120.
Minor represented through natural guardian mother, Smt.Ganga. .. Appellant (By Sri Gurudevprasad K T, Advocate) AND:
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited KSCMF Building, No.8 3rd Floor, Cunningham Road Bangalore-560 052.
2. Masthegowda M, s/o Mudlaiah r/a No.28, `Hanumad Nilaya’ 9th Main, 3rd Cross, Srinidhi Layout Konanakunte, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore-560 062. .. Respondents (By Sri E I Sanmathi, Advocate for R1, R2 – served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 16.2.2017 passed in MVC No.2743/2015 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge & XXI ACMM, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, 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 This appeal filed by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.2.2017 passed in MVC No.2743/2015 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge & XXI ACMM, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby the claim petition came to be allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,28,700/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of both the leaned counsel, the matter is takenup for final disposal.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that the occurrence of accident as well as coverage of policy of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1 – Insurance Company is not in dispute and that the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability at 6% to the entire body is incorrect inasmuch as the un-impeached evidence of the claimant and the doctors would clearly establish that the disability to the entire body of the claim was 20% instead of 6% as wrongly held by the Tribunal. It was therefore contended that the sum of Rs.16,200/- awarded in favour of the claimant under the head `loss of future income’ is highly insufficient and the same requires enhancement. It was also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head `loss of amenities’ and that having regard to the serious and grievous nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to compensation under this head also.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the compensation awarded under the conventional head viz: pain and suffering, conveyance, food etc., is inadequate and meager and same requires enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the un-impeached evidence of the appellant and doctors coupled with medical records and other documents, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability to the entire body of appellant was only 6% instead of 20%, which stood established from the material on record. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.37,800/- under the head `loss of future income’ as hereunder:
Rs.15,000/- x 18 x 20/100 = Rs.37,800/-
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head `loss of amenities’. Having regard to the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, I am of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head `loss of amenities’.
9. The material on record would also indicate that the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head `pain and suffering’ and Rs.5,000/- under the head `conveyance, nourishment etc.’ keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant.
10. Thus the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,12,800/- as stated hereunder:
1 Loss of future income Rs.37,800.00 2 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000.00 3 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000.00 4 Conveyance, nourishment etc. Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs.1,12,800.00 11. Thus, the appellant is entitled to additional enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,12,800/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
I pass the following:
ORDER i) Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 16.2.2017 passed in MVC No.2743/2015 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge & XXI ACMM, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified awarding additional enhanced compensation in favour of the appellant in a sum of Rs.1,12,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
The enhanced amount shall be released in favour of the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE bkm