IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.473 OF 2017(MV) BETWEEN SMT.NIRMALA W/O M.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.1284, 1ST MAIN 3RD CROSS, VIJAYALAKSHMI COLONY KADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 067.
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. RAGHAVA.L S/O LAKSHAMAN S AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO. 212, YANAGUNTE VILLAGE HASIGAL POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK KADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 067.
…APPELLANT 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY KSCMF BUILDING NO.8, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3908/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The present appeal arises out of impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.3908/2015 allowing the claim petition filed by the appellant in part and thereby, awarding a sum of Rs.6,79,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant, she has preferred the present appeal. No appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
4. Both counsels submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as coverage of the vehicle in question by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not in dispute. Both counsels also submit that the only issue that this appeal is restricted to whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant invited my attention to Paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment and award wherein the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,79,000/- in favour of the appellant under various heads mentioned therein.
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that having regard to the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the appellant coupled with the treatment undergone by him and the disability suffered by him on account of the accident, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a meager compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is also contended the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 40 days and as such, a sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded in favour of the appellant towards loss of income during laid up period was also highly meager and improper. In so far as the other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the same was just and proper and did not require any interference by this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 would support the impugned order.
8. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the various grounds urged on behalf of the appellant. Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident as well as the coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident by the Respondent No.2, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head pain and suffering and the compensation of Rs.24,000/- awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period is just and proper. The impugned judgment and award would indicate that the appellant suffered grave and serious injuries for which, she was hospitalized and even had to undergo surgery in addition to follow up treatment which she has taken for a period of six months. The injuries suffered by the appellant as well as the treatment taken by her in the hospital and the follow up treatment would indicate that the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded in her favour under the head pain and suffering is highly inadequate, unjust and unfair. Under these circumstances, I deem it proper to award an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant under the head pain and suffering and accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering.
9. In so far as the sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period is concerned, the Tribunal committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate the material on record which would indicate that apart from the fact that the appellant was laid up for a period of 40 days, he could not resume his duties for a period of six months and consequently, there was loss of income during this period. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.26,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded under this head is enhanced from Rs.24,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .
10. In view of the discussion made above, the claimant would be entitled to compensation stated hereunder:
The enhanced compensation would also carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization.
11. Accordingly I pass the following order:
The appeal is hereby allowed-in-part and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.3908/2015 is hereby modified. The claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.51,000/- (Rs.7,30,000/- -
Rs.6,79,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV