IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.8291/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR S/O BASAVASHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O MAGEHALLI GANDEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BELUR TALUK.
(BY SRI.JAGADEESH H T, ADV.) AND:
1. RANGASWAMY K.P S/O JAI HANUMAN TRANSPORT 3RD BLOCK, 4TH STAGE 17TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BANGALORE NORTH-566079 ... APPELLANT 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY NO.28, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-01.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H C BETSUR, ADV. FOR R2 R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:17/08/2017) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1470/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR, 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 The claimant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 19.06.2015 in MVC No.1470/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) is before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimant/injured filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that, on 27.03.2014, while the claimant was traveling in Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA-10/5728, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/AA-0089 came in a high speed and dashed against the Tata ACE vehicle, due to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted to the Government hospital at Hassan, subsequently, he was shifted to Tejaswini Hospital, Mangaluru wherein he took treatment as inpatient for nearly 9 days and undergone surgery to right femur. The claimant states that he was doing agricultural work in addition to the work of driver and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
p.m. Due to the fracture of right femur, he is not able to do the same work as he was doing prior to the accident.
3. The second respondent/Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal through their advocate, however they have not filed any objections to the claim petition nor adduced any evidence in support of their contentions.
4. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 and marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.
5. The Tribunal, on considering the material on record and taking into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and whole body disability at 9% awarded total compensation of Rs.1,33,965/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. . The claimant being dissatisfied with the meager compensation is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income assessed at Rs.6,000/- p.m. by the Tribunal is on the lower side since the accident is of the year 2014 and the claimant by doing agricultural work and driving work used to earn more than Rs.10,000/-
p.m. Learned counsel also submits that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days. The doctor/P.W.2 has opined that the claimant has suffered 27% disability to a particular limb. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded on various heads are on the lower side and requires enhancement.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability to whole body to an extent of 9% considering the medical records. Further he submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.
9. The accident is of the year 2014. When the claimant/injured states that he was doing agricultural work and driving work, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- p.m. is on the lower side. This Court and Lok Adalaths, while settling the accident claims of the year 2014 would normally take notional income of Rs.8,500/- p.m. In the present case also, in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant, it is appropriate to take Rs.8,500/- p.m. as monthly income of the claimant. The claimant has suffered fracture of right femur and he was inpatient for a period of 9 days. The doctor/P.W.2 has deposed that the claimant has suffered 27% disability to a particular limb. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and medical records as rightly assessed the whole body disability at 9% which needs no interference. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered and that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days, I am of the view that the compensation awarded under the head attendant charges is also on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has also held that the claimant has also contributed to the occurrence of the accident to an extent of 50%, which does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:
1.Loss of income due to disability
Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,32,429/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,32,500/- as against Rs.2,67,929/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fastened 50% contributory negligence on the appellant, which remains intact. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,66,250/- as against Rs.1,33,965/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated19.06.2015 in MVC No.1470/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur is modified and the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,32,500/- as against Rs.2,67,929/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, out of which, the claimant is entitled to 50% which comes to Rs.1,66,250/- thereby the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.32,285/-.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms