IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.741/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
SMT. PUTTAMMA @ PUTTAMAYAMMA W/O SHIVEGOWDA @ SHIVANNA G H AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A GOWDAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.KUMAR H N, ADV.) AND:
1. SRINATH D M S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A DINDAGURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MADHU COMPLEX MYSORE ROAD CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:08.06.2017) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.211/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, 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:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 18.07.2014 passed in MVC No. 211/2013 on the file of Fast Track Court and Additional MACT at Channarayapatna.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 27.11.2012. On 27.11.2012 the claimant was proceeding towards garden land on B.M. Road, the rider of the Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-V-7325 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to which the claimant suffered injuries to her left hand, chest and both bones of right hand were fractured. Immediately she was admitted to Government Hospital at Channarayapatna, and thereafter to Nagesh Hospital at Channarayapatna, where she had under gone surgical operation and implants were inserted. It is stated that the claimant was doing agricultural work and she was also vending milk.
3. On issuance of summons, the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company appeared and filed its objection denying the claim averments and stated that the rider of the bike was not possessing valid driving license. It is also contended that there is no nexus to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the respondent’s vehicle. The claimant examined herself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2 in support of her case and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to 31. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,43,760/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the appeal papers.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in taking Rs.4,000/- as income of the injured, whereas the accident is of the year 2012, hence monthly income of Rs.7,000/- ought to have been taken for determining the compensation on the head ‘Loss of future income’ due to disability. He further states that the claimant has suffered two fractures and she has undergone surgery. The Doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered 26% disability to particular limb, whereas the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability only at 8%. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering is on the lower side.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and there is no need for interference.
7. The accident is of the year 2012. The claimant has suffered pain and swelling over right fore arm and pain and swelling over right wrist and elbow. PW.2 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. Exs.P30 and 31 are the X-rays which indicates fracture of right hand. Implants are fixed to both the bones. The claimant was inpatient for 6 days. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered and as the claimant was inpatient for 6 days, the claimant would be entitled for another sum of Rs.10,000/- on the head ‘Pain and suffering’. The claimant has stated that she was doing agricultural work and she was also doing milk vending business. She has not produced any documents to indicate her exact income. In the absence of any material to indicate the exact income, the income is to be assessed notionally. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of year 2012 would normally take notional income of Rs.7000/- per month. Hence, in the instant case also it would be appropriate to take the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- for determining the compensation on the head ‘Loss of future income’. The Tribunal on considering the Doctor’s evidence and the medical records has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered whole body disability at 8%, which needs no interference. Thus the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation on the head ‘Loss of income due to disability’ as follows :-
Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 14 x 8% = Rs.94,080/-
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads remains undisturbed. Thus the claimant would be entitled for the following enhanced compensation as follows:-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.65,320/- in addition to Rs.1,43,760/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms