In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9188 OF 2010 (MV) Between:
SAVITHRI AGED 42 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MAHADEV RESIDING AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR, PADUVARAHALLI, MYSORE.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. A. KARUMBAIAH., ADVOCATE) And:
1. P. SRIDHAR AGED 35 YEARS SON OF LATE PUTTUSWAMY RESIDING AT NO.258/A, 6TH CROSS, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE.
2. B. SRINIVAS AGED 42 YEARS SON OF B. BASAVARAJU RESIDING AT D. NO.4102, 2ND CROSS, SIDDAPPAJI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,MYSORE.
3. HE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD NO.2911, SUNDER ARCADES OPPOSITE SUBURB BUS STAND, B. N. ROAD, MYSORE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
NOTICE SERVED ON R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.6.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.328 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV AND ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, who suffered injuries in a road accident on 23.12.2007, while traveling as a passenger in an autorickshaw insured with the respondent No.3, filed claim petition in MVC No.328/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-IV and Additional MACT, Mysuru (for short, ‘the Tribunal). The claim petition is partly allowed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs.39,000/- by its impugned judgment under the following heads:
1 Towards pain and agony on account of fracture of left clavicle bone 2 Towards medical treatment including medical expenses, attendant’s charges, nutritious food and conveyance charges Rs.12,000.00 Rs.15,000.00 3 Towards loss of income for one month Rs.4,000.00 4 Towards loss of amenities Rs.8,000.00 Total Rs.39,000.00 2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that there is no dispute about the accident or the claimant suffering fracture of left clavicle bone or the insurer’s liability.
3. In the light of the rival submissions by the learned counsel, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
“Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement in compensation either towards pain and agony or medical treatment (including medical expenses, attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance charges) or loss of income for the laid up period.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was aged 47 years as of the date of the accident and she was working as a Record Keeper with KEB. She has suffered fracture of left clavicle bone. She has examined the doctor who treated her as PW.2. The doctor’s evidence corroborates that she has suffered just not only fracture of clavicle bone but will also have to endure residuary painful through out her life. As such, the sum of Rs.12,000/- awarded towards pain and agony is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the medical records are marked as exhibits and these exhibits are undisputed. The medical records establish that the claimant was an impatient for 23 days and also had to recuperate after discharge from the hospital. As such, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under all heads including the medical expenses and attendant charges is too meager. The tribunal could not have granted only a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. As such, appropriate compensation will have to be made under each of these heads.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that the injured suffered only fracture of clavicle bone and it is an ornamental bone. There will not be any consequentially disability or residuary injury that would affect the appellant/claimant. In the light of the injuries suffered, the amount awarded towards medical treatment, including the medical expenses, attendant charges and loss of income during laid up period is just and proper.
6. It is undisputed however that even in cases referred to the Lok Adalath, in case of fracture of ornamental bone, conventionally a sum of Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. In this case, it is undisputed that the claimant/appellant has suffered fracture of clavicle bone, an ornamental bone. Though there may not be any functional disability on account of fracture of clavicle bone, it would be wrong to undermine the pain and suffering a person undergoes when she/he suffers fracture. Further, the impeached evidence is that the claimant was impatient for 23 days and she is a widow. She was aged 47 years as of the date of the accident, and only a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded including the expenses like medical expenses, attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance charges. This indeed would be too conventional a sum. As such, the appellant would be entitled for enhancement both towards pain and suffering and towards medical treatment. This Court is of the considered view that there is no need for grant of enhancement under other heads. This appeal is pending before this Court for nine years and the Tribunal has awarded 6% per annum as interest. Even if one were to go according to the schedule evolved for settlement in Lok Adalath for grant of compensation towards pain and suffering on an ornamental bone, the claimant would be entitled for enhancement in a sum of Rs.8,000/- and the claimant would also be entitled for another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards different expenses.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case including the time spent in this appeal, this Court is of the considered view that grant of a global sum of Rs.35,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the following:
ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 in MVC No.328/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-IV and Additional MACT, Mysuru is modified granting enhanced compensation in a global sum of Rs.35,000/-.
b) The insurer /respondent No.3 shall deposit the global compensation of Rs.35,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- Judge SA Ct:sr