IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT M.F.A. NO.6869/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. NINGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS GAADI MUDDANNA ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE-560079.
(BY SRI. ANANTHARAMA C, ADV.) AND:
1. SHANKAR S/O HANUMANTHAIAH MAJOR R/A NO.E-20/4 SRIGNADADA KAVALU SOLLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560091.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A M VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2 R1-APPEAL AGAINST R1 DISMISSED V/O DT:24.08.2015) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1019/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant/claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 11.06.2012 passed in MVC No.1019/2011 on the file of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 25.10.2008 when the claimant was proceeding near Sannakki Bayalu Main Road, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore, as a pedestrian a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HB-9004 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the claimant causing grievous injuries. The claimant was immediately taken to PANACEA Hospital.
3. On issuance of summons, the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company appeared and filed its objection denying the claim averments. It is also stated that the accident did not occur due to rash, negligent driving of the rider of the Motor Cycle, but it was due to the negligence of the claimant. The claimant examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and got marked 14 documents. The insurer marked Ex.R.1 – the Insurance Policy.
4. The Tribunal based on the material on record held that the claimant has suffered 15% disability to the whole body and taking into consideration the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, the claimant was awarded total compensation of Rs.1,78,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the appeal papers and the lower court records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/-, whereas she was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by vending vegetables. Further he contends that the compensation awarded on various heads is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there is no need for interference with the impugned judgment and award.
8. The accident is of the year 2010. The injured claimant states that she was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by vending vegetables, but she has not produced any document to indicate the exact income. In the absence of any material, the Court will have to determine the income on notional basis. This Court and Lok Adalath while deciding the accidents of the year 2010 would normally take notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month. Hence, it would be appropriate to take the monthly income at Rs.5,500/- for determining the compensation on the head ‘Loss of future income’. The claimant has suffered injury to right femur for which she has undergone operation. She was hospitalized as inpatient for four days. The claimant has also examined the Doctor as PW.2 in support of her case. He has stated that there is disability to the limb at 42% and total body disability at 21%. The Tribunal on assessing the evidence of the Doctor – PW.2 and looking into the material on record has taken the permanent disability at 15% which needs no interference. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ ‘Loss of Amenities’ and ‘Loss of salary during the laid up period’ is on the lower side. Thus the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ and Rs.25,000/- on the head ‘Loss of Amenities’. Looking into the injuries suffered by the claimant and as she was inpatient for four days, she would be unable to do vegetable vending for minimum of three months, thus she would be entitled for ‘Loss of income for the laid up period’ for three months, which would come to Rs.16,500/-. Thus the claimant would be entitled for the following enhanced compensation:-
(Rs.25,000/- less Rs.10,000/-) d. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.16,500/- less Rs.3,000/-) 13,500/-
Total - Rs. 95,500/-
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to modified enhanced compensation of Rs.95,500/- in addition to Rs.1,78,500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms