IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3909 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE No.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
(BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. SURESH KULAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O CHIKKA KULAL R/O. KEREKATTE HOSANGADI VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. SRI. GANESH ACHARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O BACHU ACHARI R/AT. KAKIHADI BRIDGE SHANKARANAYA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK.
… APPELLANT … RESPONDENTS - - -
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 6.3.2019, passed in MVC No.18/2018, on the file of the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), awarding compensation of Rs.11,22,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.03.2019 passed in MVC No.18/2018 on the file of the MACT, Udupi, wherein the injured claimant was granted compensation of `11,22,700/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
3. In order to avoid the confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings as held before the Tribunal.
4. The details of the road traffic accident are that on 17.07.2017 at about 10.45 a.m., the claimant Suresh Kulal was riding scooty bearing registration No.KA 20 V 1670 from Siddapura side towards Hosangadi. When he reached near Sannahole, Siddapura Village, Kundapura Taluk, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA 20 D 7617 belonging respondent No.1 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s scooty because of which the appellant sustained serious injuries over the body and had to undergo medical treatment and incur expenditure.
5. Learned counsel Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the monthly income is considered at a higher rate. Compensation towards loss of amenities is assessed at `1,00,000/-, loss of future income at `6,07,500/-. Respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner.
6. Learned member considering the claim and contention and evidence awarded the compensation as mentioned above. The same is challenged by the Insurance company in this appeal.
7. The claimant was stated to be a driver earlier.
The injuries suffered by him are:
(1) Laceration over the face on the right side and over the right ala of nose involving the right suprasternal region (2) Laceration over the face on the right side, starting from the right lower eye lid, 1 cm inner to outer canthus of right eye (3) Laceration over the forehead on the right side and right eyebrow, starting from the outer end of right eyebrow (4) Laceration over the back of wrist with swelling deformity (5) Swelling deformity over the back of right forearm with underlying facture of radius bone.
8. The disability is considered at 29% to the right upper limb and 46% in respect of the left upper limb.
Thus, the total functional disability from both the limbs would be 37.5%. It is in this area, learned counsel submits that it has been considered on the higher side.
9. Keeping the circumstances and facts hovering around the accident and the status of injured, claimed to be driver which is denied by the Insurance Company, insofar as the loss of future income is concerned, it is on the basis of monthly income of `9,000/- and permanent disability at 37%, the applicable multiplier being 15 as the petitioner is stated to be 40 years at the time of accident and the equation followed by the learned Member is as under:
9,000 x 12 = 1,08,000 x 37/100 = 40500 x 15 = 6,07,500/-
10. Learned counsel would submit that the compensation granted on the head of loss of amenities is `1,00,000/-. It is also to be considered that interest awarded is 6% and there is no provision for loss of future medical expenses. Sine the compensation awarded is just, fair and proper, there are no grounds either to enhance or reduce the same.
11. In the overall context and circumstances of the case, I do not find any necessity to proceed further in the appeal as it is liable to be rejected at preliminary stage itself.
Hence, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE RV