IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.1045/2012 (MV) BETWEEN RAGHU @ RAGHUNAIKA S/O TULASI NAIKA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O.NNKATTE VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TQ, NOW R/O.STATION ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501. .. APPELLANT (By Sri SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE OFFICE, OWNER OF TOYOTA QUALIS BEARING No.KA-16/G-271 BESIDE J P NURSING HOME V P EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577501.
2. KARNATAKA GOVT. INSURANCE DEPT (KGID) BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NEHRU NAGAR, HOLALKERE MAIN ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri M MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.834/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT The appellant is the claimant. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 19th April, 2011 passed in MVC No.834/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga (for short `Tribunal’), he has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 2.12.2009 at about 6.45 a.m., while he was standing near Heggere Gate bus stop on SH-19 in between Challakere - Hiriyur Road and waiting for a bus to go to Chitradurga, the driver of the Government Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-16/G-271 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to that, he fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur. After first aid, he was shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital and Research Centre, wherein he took treatment for a period of 34 days. He has sustained three fractures. In view of the injuries undergone, he is permanently disabled to do the work, which he was doing earlier to the accident. Prior to the accident, he was working as a JCB helper and doing coolie work and earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, the accident occurred and both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claimant. They contended that due to negligence on the part of the claimant, the accident occurred. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The parties have led evidence.
5. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the Government Jeep, the accident occurred. The claimant has sustained fractures and the injuries. Hence, he is entitled to compensation.
6. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of four bones in lower back i.e. fracture of anterior column of acetabellum and fracture of left superior and inferior rami and other injuries to body. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month and taking the disability to an extent of 15% to whole body awarded Rs.1,29,600/- towards `loss of future income’, Rs.25,000/- towards `pain and suffering’, Rs.20,000/- towards `medical bills and other expenses’ and Rs.20,000/- towards `attendant and nutritious food charges’. In all, a sum of Rs.1,94,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal.
7. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that in the accident, the claimant has sustained the following injuries:
a) fracture of anterior column of acetabellum, b) fracture of left superior and inferior rami c) fracture of right side of scraum with minimal displacement and other bodily injuries.
8. The conventional treatment was taken by the claimant. Dr.Rajesh and Dr.Ambarish, who treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 22% to his right lower limb and 22% to his left lower limb. The total disability to an extent of 44%. The Tribunal has assessed the disability to an extent of 15% to whole body. The accident occurred in the year 2009. The income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even for a daily wage employee working in various Government Departments, the income is being taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. Even though the claimant has not produced any document with regard his income, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable income while awarding the compensation. In the instant case, taking into consideration the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month as he was aged about 22 years, applying the multiplier 18 and taking the disability to an extent of 15%, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,62,000/- towards `future loss of income’. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards `pain and suffering’ is on the lower side. He took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 34 days in the hospitals and he underwent surgery for three fractures. Thereafter, he took followup treatment for a period of six days. Hence, he is entitled to another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards `pain and suffering’ in addition to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability throughout his life. No compensation has been awarded towards `amenities in life’. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards `amenities in life’. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards `loss of income during the laid up period’. In view of hospitalization and subsequent bed rest, the claimant was out of employment for a period of three months. Hence, he is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards `loss of income during the laidup period’. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.87,400/- in addition to Rs.1,94,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 19th April, 2011 passed in MVC No.834/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.87,400/- in addition to Rs.1,94,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.