IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MFA No.1004 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SATEESHA RANJANAGI, S/O. CHANNAPPA RANJANAGI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT STAFF QTRS, SOUKYA IHHC, SOUKYA ROAD, SAMETHANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 067.
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T, ADV.,) AND ... APPELLANT 1. SRI. ANAND.R, MAJOR, S/O. SRI. RAMAPPA, R/AT NO.96, VELAPI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-585501.
2. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 - DISPENSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4348/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV A.C.M.M, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Insurer and perused the records.
2. The injured-claimant has preferred this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2015, passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4348/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The facts of the case are that on 11.09.2014 at about 7.50 p.m. when the injured-claimant was waiting on his Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-53/EG-0311 on Varthur-Gunjur road, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16/B-
5209 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against one Auto rickshaw, one Motorcycle and also the claimant’s Honda Activa. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed the claim petition.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer appeared before the Tribunal, filed written statement and contested the claim petition. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the insurer denied all the averments while admitting the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Lorry involved in the accident restricting its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. He has contended that there is violation of policy conditions since the rider/driver of the vehicles involved in the accident did not posses valid and effective driving license and the owner of the lorry did not possess valid FC and permit to the said vehicle as on the date of accident.
5. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards ‘loss of income during laid-up- period’ and the compensation awarded towards other heads is on the lower side and prays for enhancement.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the claimant-injured is a Doctor by profession and as could be seen from salary certificate as at Ex.P.12, his monthly salary was Rs.50,000/- per month. Ex.P.10, the discharge summary issued by the hospital discloses that the date of admission to the hospital was on 12.09.2014 and date of discharge was on 14.09.2014 (3 days). However, learned counsel for the claimant relied on the confirmation letter Ex.P13, wherein it was mentioned that the claimant was on medical leave from 12.09.2014 to 18.12.2014 (3 months). Though the claimant was in-patient for 3 days in the hospital, he was on medical leave for 3 months, which was not considered by the Tribunal. On account of injuries sustained by him he had applied 3 months leave. To meet the ends of justice, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Having regard to the nature of injuries, period of treatment and consequential disability sustained by the injured, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards ‘pain and sufferings’, is slightly on the lower side and the same is enhanced from 10,000/- to 50,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘nourishment’ and ‘conveyance’ is also slightly on the lower side. Hence, it would be just and reasonable to award another sum of Rs.10,000/- together. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,96,000/-.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2015, passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4348/2014 is modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE