IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.5225 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN P.T.NACHAPPA, S/O P.K. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.37/3, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND OLD GRAMEENA BANK, HUSUR ROAD, HINKAL, MYSURU – 570 006.
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEVARAJE GOWDA, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KITTURU VILLAGE, D.G.KOPPALU, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 107.
2. DEVARAJU, S/O SHAMBOO GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.116, MELOOR VILLAGE, K R NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 602.
…APPELLANT 3. UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR TP-HUB, NO.1134, PRINCE OF WALES ROAD, BALLAL CIRCLE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 005.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.769/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES & SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Judge, Addl. Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mysuru in MVC.No.769/2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,95,400/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization on account of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 16.06.2013.
2. Though the matter is listed for further orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability to the entire body of the appellant-claimant was to an extent of 10% without considering or appreciating the unimpeached evidence of the appellant-claimant as well as the Doctor-PW.2 which would clearly establish that the appellant would incur permanent disability to the extent of 19% to the entire body. It is therefore contended that by taking the permanent disability to the entire body as 19%, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’ on account of disability.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also contended that having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the fatal accident, a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is highly inadequate and meagre and the same requires enhancement by this Court.
6. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ despite the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident. It is therefore contended that the enhancement in compensation is required under these two heads also.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed error in failing to consider and appreciate the unimpeached evidence of the appellant-claimant as well as Doctor-PW.2 coupled with the medical records and other documents which would clearly establish that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant-claimant has incurred disability only to the extent of 10% to the entire body is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the permanent disability to the entire body of the appellant- claimant is to be taken as 15%. Consequently, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’ as hereunder:
9000x12x15/100x15 = Rs.2,43,000/-
The Tribunal having awarded Rs.1,62,000/- towards ‘loss of future income’, then the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.81,000/- (Rs.2,43,000.00 – Rs.1,62,000.00) under this head.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant is right in contending that having regard to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident the Tribunal has awarded sums of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- under conventional heads i.e. ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities’ are highly inadequate and meagre and the same requires to be enhanced by awarding additional compensation in a sums of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.1,26,000/- as hereunder:
12. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- together with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Judge, Addl. Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mysuru in MVC.No.769/2013 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iv) The respondent is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD