IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY BETWEEN: NAGARAJ MFA No.1223/2015 (MV) S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGE 28 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER R/O M.K.HATTY CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 501 (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R, ADV.) AND:
1. H.NAGARAJAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA R MAJOR, OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.
KA-16/A-2969 R/O M.K.HATTY CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 501 2. THE MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.1 & 2, 1ST FLOOR MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D.ROAD CHITRADURGA – 577 501 (BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2 ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O/DT:25.10.2017) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.611/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT – V, CHITRADURGA, 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:-
J U D G M E N T The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.
2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. Occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving and involvement of the vehicle are not in dispute.
The appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation and liability.
5. The appellant having suffered differmative over the right leg, swelling and tenderness over right lower 1/3 leg and abrasion over lateral malleous of right leg, disability at 34% and his income was assessed at Rs.5,000/-, a total compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a was awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the Tribunal has not granted compensation on various heads. Hence, he seeks enhancement.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the judgment and award and submits that just compensation has been granted by the Tribunal.
8. Perusal of record of the trial Court reveals that the liability was fasten on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that driver was not having driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident, whereas the driver was having driving license to drive the vehicle. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, the liability is fastened on the insurance Company.
9. The appellant was an inpatient in the hospital for 16 days. He suffered two grievous injuries. The compensation at Rs.20,000/- awarded towards ‘pain and sufferings’ appears to be on the lower side. Hence, it is just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- on this head as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. He was working as auto driver. The accident is of the year 2013. Even in the Lok-Adalath, the income of the labourer is considered at Rs.8,000/- per month and it is proper to accept the said sum as income of the appellant. With this difference and the disability at 1/3 out of 34% is 11%, the compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ would be Rs.1,79,520/- rounded of to Rs.1,79,500/- and the same is awarded.
11. No. compensation has been awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
12. On the basis of the bills produced, the compensation towards ‘medical expenses’ has been granted and it is reasonable.
13. Towards ‘conveyance, attendance charges, food and nourishment’ no compensation has been granted. As the appellant was inpatient in the hospital for 16 days, it would be proper to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on these heads.
14. No compensation has been granted towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Generally three months time is required to resume to the duty after healing of the fracture. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.24,000/- on this head.
15. Thereby, the compensation payable to the appellant is as under:
awarded by Tribunal Balance 1,01,000 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation within a period of eight weeks to the claimant. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM