IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7179 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAN S/O. KUTTAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS C/O KURUPP HOUSE KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU – 560 015. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI H.C.RAMASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. N.C.ANANDA MAJOR S/O. NINGEGOWDARA CHANNEGOWDA R/AT 3RD CROSS MAHADESHWARA COMPLEX CHANNAPATNA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. THE MANAGER M/S. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5, MONARCH CHAMBERS 2ND FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD.20.07.2015) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7284/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M.M., AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is before this Court in this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment and award dated 08.02.2012 in M.V.C.No.7284/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 02.09.2010. It is stated that on 02.09.2010 at about 8.15 p.m., when the claimant stopped his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-EB-6493, lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-1887 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle from hind side. Due to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and his motorcycle was damaged. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Sarojini Nursing home and thereafter shifted to Columbia Asia hospital. He was inpatient from 2.9.2010 to 13.9.2010. It is stated that the claimant was doing fabrication work and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
3. On service of notice, the second respondent- Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections admitting the issuance of policy but however, denied the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that the driver of the offending vehicle lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Doctor PW-2 in support of his case apart from marking documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. No evidence was adduced by the respondent apart from marking document Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,48,000/-
The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the entire lower court records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even though Doctor has opined that the claimant suffered from 6% whole body disability and 19% disability to a particular limb, the Tribunal has not assessed the disability at all. He further states that he has suffered crush injury of left foot 15cmx8cm, exposing the underlying tendons and subluxation of left big toe. He was inpatient for 11 days. Looking to the injuries and the treatment taken, the compensation awarded on various heads are on the lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of ‘attendant charges, conveyance and nourishment’. The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which requires no interference.
9. On hearing learned counsels and on perusal of the material on record, the only question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
10. The answer to the above question is in the affirmative for the following reasons:-
The accident is of the year 2010. The accident involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-EB-6493 and lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-1887 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant appellant are not in dispute in this appeal. The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The claimant produced Ex.P6-wound certificate and Ex.P7-dishcarge summary, which indicate the injury suffered by the claimant and the treatment taken as inpatient. The claimant has suffered crush injury of left foot 15cmX8cm and subluxation of left big toe. PW.2 is the Doctor examined in support of the claimant’s case, but PW.2- Doctor is not a treated Doctor and also not an orthopedic surgeon.
11. The Tribunal looking into the evidence of PW.2 and medical records has awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards disability and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Looking to the injuries and treatment taken, the amount awarded on the said heads are on the lower side.
12. The claimant would be entitled for another sum of Rs.25,000/- on both the heads of disability and loss of amenities. The compensation awarded on the head of ‘pain and suffering’ are also on the lower side for which the claimant would be entitled for another sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Looking to the injury suffered and the treatment taken, the claimant would have been out of employment for minimum period of three months. The cliamant would be entitled for ‘loss of income during treatment’ for a period of three
13. Thus the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- as against Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR