IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APEAL NO.6931 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SHRI.OBALESH P., S/O PEDDANNA @ PEDDAGA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 4TH CROSS, J.J.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032.
(BY SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA, ADV.,) AND:
1. M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX, NEXT TO MANDOVI MOTORS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. SANGEETHA, W/O SHANTHILAL, MAJOR, R/AT NO.171, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU – 560 026.
3. SRI.SHANTHILAL, S/O MANGILAL, ... APPELLANT MAJOR, R/AT NO.171, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU – 560 026.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV., FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2014;NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2015) *** THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.7172/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on 01.04.2014 in M.V.C.No.7172/2011 on the file of the II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with consent of learned counsel appearing for 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. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.10.2011 due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA- 01-ES-3604 by its rider and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced.
6. As per wound certificate Ex.P-6, the claimant has sustained following injuries:-
suffered right frontal parietal SDH, Left temporal EDH with left temporal bone fracture.
The injuries sustained by the claimant are also evident from discharge summary Ex.P-7, case sheet Ex.P-12, X-rays Exs.P-15 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor, who were examined as PWs-1 and 2 respectively. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 36.6% to the whole body.
7. Considering the nature of injuries sufferred by the claimant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘pain and suffering’ is on the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by another Rs.40,000/- and I award Rs.90,000/- under this head.
8. As Rs.1,22,368/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘medical expenses’ is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
9. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days. Considering the duration of treatment a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards ‘incidental expenses’ such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges in addition to Rs.7,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The claimant claims to be working as a hamali and earning a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month, but the same is not established by producing any documents. Admittedly the accident is of the year 2011. This Court assessed the income, even in a case where it has not been proved by considering the price index, cost of living and life style etc., at Rs. 6,500/- p.m. as against Rs.6,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. The nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 4 months and therefore a sum of Rs.26,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ as against Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in his future life, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 15. His income is assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that claimant has suffered disability of 36.66% to whole body. Taking into consideration the evidence deposed by the doctor, disability of 30% to whole body is to be assessed. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.3,51,000/- (6500 x 12 x 15 x 30/100) and it is awarded as against Rs.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-
HEADS Rs.
This amount would carry interest of about Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, if a global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded it would meet the ends of Justice.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for an additional global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said amount shall not carry any interest.
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HR