IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. NO.6798/2019 (MVC) BETWEEN:
NAGAMMA W/O PARTHAYYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.19, CHINCHOLI TALUKA CHITAPUR DISTRICT: KALABURGI .. APPELLANT (BY SRI : MARUTI GAONKARE, ADVOCATE ) AND 1 . LIBERTY VIDECON GENERAL INSURANCE CO OFFICE NO.1, ALYSSA 1ST FLOOR, REAR PORTION OLD NO.28, NEW NO.23, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025 (POLICY COVER NOTE NO.20000085489) 2 . MR. SANTHOSHKUMAR B.V. S/O PRABHAKAR RAO B.V. NO. 235, 5TH CROSS TELECOM LAYOUT PENNIFILED GARDEN SRIRAMPURA JAKKUR BENGALURU - 560 067.
RESPONDENTS (R.1. SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED ) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.3704/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH – 4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for orders, considering the nature and circumstances of the case, it is taken up for disposal.
2. The claimant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2019 passed in MVC No.3704/2015 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The facts leading to the claim petition are that:
On 20.03.2015 at about 1.15 p.m. the appellant being a pedestrian was crossing the road near Vivekananda School, by which time Mahindra XUV car bearing Registration No.KA-02 MJ 5724, driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the claimant. As a result of the same, she sustained the following injuries:
i) Fracture of right tibia ii) Fracture of right fibula iii) Lacerated wound with bleeding over right foot.
It is stated that she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a helper at Presidency School. The doctor, who was examined as PW.2 deposed that the injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature. Considering the evidence of doctor, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 10%.
4. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent-Insurance company.
5. In support of her claim, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhs.P1 to P12. On behalf of the Insurance company, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exhs.R.1 to R.4. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted total compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. It is against the said quantum, the claimant has come up in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Sri Maruthi Gaonkare, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal erred in granting meager compensation. It is submitted that she was working as a helper earlier to the accident. Now that she is unable to walk, the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation towards disability.
7. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the injury and the treatment taken by the appellant, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- by taking salary at Rs.8,000/- per month and applying 15 multiplier by virtue of the age of the claimant i.e., 38 years.
8. I have considered the quantum of compensation awarded and injuries sustained by petitioner. No materials are placed before this Court to claim higher compensation. In the circumstances, I find that the compensation amount of Rs.3,13,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and equitable. There is no necessity to proceed further in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/