IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.NO.10363/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNAPPA @ RAMANNA S/O. CHIKKAPPA @ CHIKANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. MADDANAKUNTE VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK NOW C/O. SIDDESH YADAV G.G. KALYANMANTAPA JOGIMATTI ROAD CHITRADURGA-577 501. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NEW INDIA ASSU. CO. LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER VIJAYASHRI, OPP. NANJUNDESWARA PETROL BUNK, NEAR UNION PARK DAVANAGERE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. THIPPESWAMY S/O. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.T. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.340/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, 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 This appeal is listed for admission and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.340/2011 dated 10.08.2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional M.A.C.T., Chitradurga questioning the quantum of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.03.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., the claimant was standing near the TVS moped in the left side of the road near Narenal Cross after attending Kanive Maramma Jatra of Kunchiganal Village. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-02-C-8753 coming from opposite direction drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury.
4. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was ordered to the respondents and respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition regarding negligence, nature of injuries and avocation of the claimant.
5. The Tribunal, on considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award insofar as the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant in the appeal would contend that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation on all the heads and would further contend that the no amount has been awarded on the head medical expenses on the ground that, prescriptions are not produced. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing the respondents would contend that the tribunal has rightly not considered the medical expenses since, the bills produced are not supported by any prescription. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and it does not require any interference of this Court. The learned counsel would further contend that the tribunal has taken note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2011 and has taken reasonable income and has awarded just and reasonable compensation on all the heads and hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondents, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
9. On perusal of the material availed on record, the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P7 discloses that the claimant has suffered fractures i.e., fracture of right femur etc., and he was in the hospital as a inpatient for a period of 49 days for taking treatment as well as for removal of implant.
10. Having considered the same, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.25,000/- on the head pain and suffering, when the claimant has sustained two fractures. Hence, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.25,000/-
11. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and the tribunal while discussing the claim of the claimant has assigned the reason that the medical bills are not supported by any prescriptions and when the prescriptions are not produced before the Court, I do not find any error committed by the tribunal in rejecting the same. However, Rs.10,000/- as awarded is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference of this Court.
12. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, dieting and attendant charges. The records would disclose that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 49 days and when such being the case, the tribunal ought to have considered the period of treatment, food, nourishment and conveyance. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-.
13. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,800/- on the head loss of income due to permanent disability. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month and the disability at 15% which is 1/3rd of the disability assessed by the doctor at 44.98%. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the tribunal in considering the disability. However, the income of the claimant is on the lower side. When there is no documentary proof with regard to the income of the claimant, the tribunal ought to have taken notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month. Having considered the same, a sum of Rs.1,63,800/- is awarded. (6500 x 12 x 14 x 15 / 100).
14. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the head loss of future amenities. Having considered the disability at 15% and the claimant was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and medical evidence also discloses that he has suffered 15% disability and he has to lead rest of his life with the said disability, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-.
15. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period. Having considered the fact that the claimant has suffered commuted fracture and fracture of right femur and in order to unite the fracture, it requires minimum three to four months and after uniting, it requires one or two months rest, I am of the opinion that it requires minimum five months. Hence, taking the income of the claimant as Rs.6,500/- per month, a sum of Rs.32,500/- is awarded under this head.
16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified granting the compensation of Rs.3,01,300/- as against Rs.1,55,800/- awarded by the tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The respondents are directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within 8 weeks from today.
(iv) The order of the tribunal in respect of apportionment and depositing the compensation amount in fixed deposit shall remain unaltered.
Sd/- JUDGE ST