IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.9213 OF 2015 (MV) C/W M.F.A. NO.9215 OF 2015 (MV) IN M.F.A. NO.9213 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SHYLAJA W/O Y.N.NAGESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTE, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.SRIPAD V SHASTHRI, ADV.) AND:
1. NAVEEN S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O RATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, D.K.HALLI POST, MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT – 570 001 2. SANATHKUMAR K.M., MAJOR, S/O MALLAIAHSWAMY K.M. R/O KOTTEGALA VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE TALUK – 570 001 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.846, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, NEAR AKSHAY BANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-570 001 4. SURYAKUMAR K.V.
S/O LATE R.VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O KAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 28 6. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN- 573 201 7. DEPOT MANAGER KSRTC, RAMANATHAPURA DEPOT, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R3; SMT.SHWETHA ANAND, ADV. FOR R5; NOTICE TO R6 – SERVED;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4 & R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.9215 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
CHANDRU @ CHANDRAHASA S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O LIG NO.25, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.SRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1. NAVEEN S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O RATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, D.K. HALLI, MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT – 570 001 2. SANATHKUMAR K.M., MAJOR BY AGE S/O MALLAIAHSWAMY K.M.
R/O KOTTEGALA VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 001 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.846,KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, NEAR AKSHAY BANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 001 4. SURYAKUMAR K.V.
S/O LATE R. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O KAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 27 6. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201 7. DEPOT MANAGER KSRTC, RAMANATHAPURA DEPOT, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3; SMT.SHWETHA ANAND, ADV. FOR R5; NOTICE TO R6 – SERVED;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4 & R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.136/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, MACT, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T In the claim petitions filed seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimants therein in the road traffic accident that took place pm 14th July, 2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holenarisipura passed common judgment and award dated 03rd September 2015 in MVC No.132 of 2013 connected with MVC Nos.133-136 of 2013. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, these appeals are filed seeking enhancement in compensation. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.9213 of 2015 is filed by the claimant in MVC No.132 of 2013; and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.9215 of 2015 is filed by the claimant in MVC No.136 of 2013.
2. As regards these claims, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. It is his submission as regards MFA No.9213 of 2015 is concerned that the claimant was working as a teacher in a private school and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in taking the same at Rs.6,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads also needs to be enhanced. As regards MFA No.9215 of 2015 is concerned, it is his submission that the claimant was working as a co-ordinator in Rushi Sri Vidyaniketana Vidya Samsthe and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has disbelieved the same and has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- month which is very meager. In this appeal also the learned counsel submits that the amount awarded under other heads is meager and seeks suitable enhancement.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurer submits that the Tribunal has considered all the documents produced and also considered oral evidence adduced and has awarded just and proper compensation. There is no ground for interference and hence prays to dismiss these appeals.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. As regards the claimant in MFA No.9213 is concerned, the claimant was aged 44 years at the time of accident. As per the wound certificate produced at Ex.15 she has suffered- (1) laceration injury of 3x1 inch from upper limb to forehead; (2) deformity of left arm; (3) tenderness over both shoulders; (4) tenderness over right knee; (5) multiple small skin abrasion over both forearm and right leg, of which the injuries (1) and (2) are grievous in nature. She was inpatient for a period of 11 days. She was diagnosed with fracture of shaft of left humorous with facial injury. There was also comminuted fracture of nasal bone and hence surgery was conducted by fixing ORIF with plates and screws to the fractured bones. The Doctor has issued disability Certificate Exhibit P3 stating that the injured is having scar over her face, and as regards neck and head is concerned she is having permanent disability of 22%. She is finding it difficult to chew hard food. There is loss of smell which is permanent and irreversible and the claimant also complains of plan over the vertex. Though she has claimed that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the same is not supported by any document. She has not examined anyone from the school or produced any document like salary slip or bank statement to show that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Be that as it may. As the accident is of the year 2012, and considering the age of the appellant, I am inclined to take the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, the calculation under the head loss of future earnings would come to Rs.7,000/1 x 12 x 13 x 20/100 which comes to Rs.2,18,400/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.1,40,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injury, it is to be presumed that she might have taken three moths rest and hence under the head loss of income during laid up period taking the income at Rs.7,000/- per month, another Rs.15,000/- is awarded. Towards pain and suffering another Rs.20,000/- is awarded. Taking note of the fact the trauma that the appellant has to undergo for the rest of her life, towards loss of amenities in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.15,000/- is awarded. Considering the period of hospitalisation another Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head conveyance and nourishment. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remain undisturbed. In all, the additional compensation would be R.1,38,000/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate is awarded by the Tribunal. The negligence and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.
5. As regards MFA No.9215 is concerned, the Exhibit P24- wound certificate shows that the appellant has sustained abrasion over right eyebrow measuring 2 x 2 cms; lacerated wound over the right elbow joint on the antirial aspect measuring 2 x 2 x ¼ inches; pain in the right knee. There is a fracture of tibia. The appellant was an inpatient for about five days and was treated surgically with ORIF with plate and screw. It is contended in the claim petition that he was working as co- ordinator in the school. To support his contention he has produced any document to that effect. Though the appellant has produced salary certified to show that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not taken the same into account in view of the fact that the nature of work is not mentioned therein and has proceeded to assess the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the age of the appellant and the year of accident, in this case too, the income is taken at Rs.7,000/- per month and the calculation under the head loss of future earnings would be Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 17 x 10/100 comes to Rs.1,42,800/- and the same is awarded as against Rs.1,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Taking the income at Rs.7,000/- and considering the nature of injury, it is to be presumed that the appellant might have taken three months rest and the loss of income during the laid up period is awarded at Rs.21,000/- which includes the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Towards pain and suffering another Rs.20,000/- is awarded; and under the head loss of amenities another Rs.10,000/- is awarded. The compensation awarded under other heads remain undisturbed. In all the total enhanced compensation would be Rs.86,800/- which shall carry interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. The disbursement and negligence aspect is as per the award of the Tribunal.
The appeals are allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn