IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.986/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
RAMESH @ NARAYAN SHETTIGAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SANJEEVA SHETTIGAR R/O INDIRA NAGARA, VARAMBALLI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576201 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . MALARAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O HARSHAN RAM R/O D.NO.1-4-87A, ZEENATH MANZIL NEAR DODDANAGUDDE MASJID, UDUPI-576201 2 . HEERARAM AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O BERARAM R/O 11-2-30, VIDYARANYA NAGAR UDUPI-576201 3 . THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., SRI RAM ARCADE OPP : HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI-576101 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1054/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, 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 Though appeal is listed for admission, in the circumstances of the case it is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 23.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1054/2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Udupi, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.2,79,965/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till full and final realisation came to be granted to the petitioner. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The details of the road traffic accident are as under:
On 21.07.2017 at about 8.30 p.m. the petitioner was standing on mud road on the eastern side of NH-66 near Brahmavara bus stand for crossing eastern side to western side of the road. At that time, one Eco Omni STD LPG bearing registration No.KA-20- N-9305 came from Kundapura towards Brahmavara side in a rash and negligent manner and driver of the vehicle lost control and dashed against petitioner on account of which he sustained serious injuries and claims he has incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- and was working in Hotel and earning Rs.45,000/- per month and because of the disability he is unable to work.
4. The injuries stated to have been sustained by the petitioner are as under:
(i) Intra articular fracture lower end of femur right thigh (ii) Bemallelar fracture right ankle and (iii) Cut lacerated wound over right leg 5. The doctor has stated that petitioner has sustained permanent disability of 26.53% of right lower limb and Tribunal has considered disability at 13% to the whole body and considered the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. Following is the compensation granted:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
6. Learned Member has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Puttamma and others Vs K.Narayana Reddy and another reported in 2014 ACJ 546 and awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal without reason or justification has awarded a lesser amount and in total meager assessment and it requires to be re-looked.
8. Learned counsel for appellant also would submit that 20% of loss of future income is deducted by way of contributory negligence which learned counsel for appellant submits was unnecessary.
9. I find the learned Member is right in considering the income at Rs.8,000/- as against the claim of Rs.45,000/-. Compensation of Rs.2,79,965/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. is not a meager one considering the nature of injuries and the extent of disability, age of injured being 60 years at the time of accident with reference to income claimed by him at Rs.45,000/- per month. Insofar as the apportionment of liability, I do not find any discrepancy or lapse.
In the whole context and circumstances I find the Judgment and award passed by the learned Member is neither infirm nor unjust or incomplete. It is fair, just and equitable.
Appeal deserves to be rejected at this stage itself and accordingly it is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN