IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1411 OF 2012 (MV) Between:
National Insurance Co., Ltd., Branch Office, Kundapura, Now represented by its Regional Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Regional Office, Subharam Complex, 144, M.G. Road, Bengaluru -560 001. …Appellant (By Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, Advocate) And:
1. Skariya P.V., W/o. P.T. Verghese, Now aged about 44 years, R/o. Chikkansal Road, Kundapura.
2. Prakash Shetty, S/o. Sheenappa Shetty, R/o. Kambalagadde Mane, Bagwadi, Noojady Village, Kundapura Taluk. ... Respondents (By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, Advocate for R1; R2 served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 19.10.2011 passed in MVC No.193/2008 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, MACT, Kundapura.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.193/2018 dated 19.10.2011 wherein the claimant therein has granted a compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- with interest of 6% per annum.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are referred in accordance with their ranks in Tribunal.
3. The accident that that resulted to proceedings in MVC No.193/2008 dated 19.10.2011 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, MACT, Kundapura is occurred on 21.09.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. near Sulse Cross, Katbelthoor Village, Kundapura Taluk, the claimant was travelling from one side towards Hemmady side as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20- J-1459 belonging to one Mr. Raviraja Shetty driven by himself. At that time, the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-20-R-3951 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling. Due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. Police registered criminal case against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-R-3951.
4. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the rider was not having valid and appropriate license.
5. The learned Member adjudicated the matter considering these aspects of negligence, accident, injuries, disability and the entitlement and granted a total compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- directing the Insurance Company to deposit the same, which is challenged in the appeal by the Insurance Company. The injuries sustained by the claimant as referred in the judgment of the Tribunal is called out as under :
“Fractures involving anterior, lateral and medial walls of right maxillary sinus, fracture nasal bones, fracture lateral wall of right maxillary sinus, facture left zygomatic bone, fracture nasal septurn, diffuse cerebral Oedema, CLW over left eyebrow, extending nose 8x3 cms. Bone deep bleeding.”
6. Apart from the petitioner PW1, he has examined two Doctors as PW2 and PW3. The petitioner has stated that he has undergone accidental surgery but observed that no materials are produced regarding the surgery.
7. The evidences on record show that the implants are installed to the claimant and in future claimant has to undergo surgery for removal of the implants. The compensation under the head of loss of future income is considered by referring the loss of one eye sight and fractures stated above.
8. The monthly income is considered at Rs.4,500/- in the context and circumstances of the case.
9. Claimant has suffered physical disability to some extent which may affect his working capacity as a Writer and Supervisor to some extent. PW2 has specifically corroborated the evidence of PW-1 that claimant has suffered vision problem and it is difficult for him to see light and he has advised him to take proper care and not to work in sunlight. PW-3 has stated that claimant has difficulty to chew hard food and there is a permanent disability on his face.
10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy would submit that the disability percentage considered by the learned Member is very much on the higher side and requires to be brought down and that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.
11. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability to the left eye. PW-2-Dr. Srinath, Ophthalmology Surgeon of Vittala Nethralaya, Kundapura has deposed about the disability as claimant as suffered permanent physical disability of 6/24 to the left eye.
12. PW-3- Dr. Balakrishna, specifically deposed certain disabilities suffered by the claimant in relation to face and opined that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability of 13% to the face. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the injury suffered by the claimant on his left eye is not an ordinary injury. The accidental injuries have caused permanent disability, as such he is unable to attend the work and the injuries have affected the normal activities of the petitioner.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no issue regarding liability. However, the main contention of the appellant is regarding compensation. On examination of the award of compensation by the Tribunal, I find the compensation awarded is fair and just and does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit may be transmitted to the trial Court.
BVK Sd/- JUDGE