IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4679/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SHRI. P. SRIRAMULU S/O.P.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.44-A BEHIND SEA COLLEGE BASAVANAPURA K.R.PURAM MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560036.
NATIVE ADDRESS:
NO.3-22, KOLATTOR PUNGANUR MADANAPALLE(T) CHITTOOR (D) ANDHRA PRADESH.
(BY SRI.JAGADISH G KUMBAR, ADV. SRI. SREENIVASAIAH A, ADV.) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A.P.S.R.T.C. MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD.
(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) ...APPELLANT …RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1064/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 25.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1064/2012 on the file of XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 12.10.2011 when the claimant was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-C- 3577 on Palamaner-Punganur road, an APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP-11-Z-850 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant’s motor cycle, due to the impact the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for 20 days. He was aged 50 years as on the date of accident. By doing mason work he was earning Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per day.
3. On issuance of summons, the respondent – Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments and contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, since the accident had taken place on Chittor District of Andhra Pradesh. It is also contended that it is a false complaint.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 in support of his case. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.21,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
a. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
b. Attendant charges, food and nourishment Expenses and conveyance charges 1,000/-
Total Rs.21,000/-
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 respondent - Corporation. Perused the entire material on record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation. He submits that the claimant has suffered injuries which are as follows :-
1. 4 x 2 laceration over right temporal region 2. Deep cut laceration of size 8 x 10 cm over right knee 3. Laceration 1 x 2 cm over right temporal region 4. Deep abrasion over right side of fore head.
5. Incised injuries of size 3 x 1 cm over right arm.
6. Abrasion over back of right elbow.
7. Sutured wound over right palm.
And he further submits that he has placed on record Ex.P5 – the wound certificate. The Tribunal failed to awarded any compensation towards medical expenses. Looking to the injuries suffered by claimant and treatment taken as inpatient for 20 days he would be entitled for compensation towards medical expenses. He further submits that the Doctor has opined that whole body disability would be 8% but the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of income due to disability’. Thus prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent –Corporation submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that even though the claimant has taken treatment for 20 days, he has not placed any medical records including the discharge summary. PW.2 - the Doctor, who is examined is not the treated Doctor. In the absence of material the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.21,000/-. Thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as to “Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case ?” Answer to the said point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons :
The occurrence of the accident on 12.10.2011 involving Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-C-3577 and APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-11-Z-850 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant, are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has suffered the injuries as stated above. He has placed on record Ex.P.5 – the wound certificate. He has also examined PW.2 – the Doctor, but he has not placed on record any material to establish the treatment taken by him as inpatient for 20 days, what is the nature of treatment taken and what is the expenses incurred by the claimant towards treatment taken is not placed on record. PW.2 - the Doctor examined on behalf of the claimant states that the claimant suffers from 8% disability to the whole body, but there is no material to establish the claimant’s disability. In the absence of material to establish the whole body disability, the Doctor’s evidence cannot be believed to say that the claimant suffers from 8% whole body disability. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered as per Ex.P5 - the wound certificate and the statement of the claimant that he took treatment as inpatient for 20 days, I am of the view, that the claimant would be entitled to another sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms