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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8937 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.A.RAMA REDDY S/O MUNIREDDY @ GANGAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.123/4,3RD MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS, KALYANAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 072 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.S.N.SWAMY S/O SIDDAPPA, R/AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE & POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., R/AT NO.8,3RD FLOOR,3RD BLOCK, KSCMF BUILDING, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052 BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3063/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED MEMBER OF THE MACT & XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Memo accepted. Notice to respondent No.1 dispensed with.
2. The appellant herein filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 05th April 2014. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 05th September 2015 passed in MVC No.3063 of 2014 awarded compensation of Rs.7,74,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurer submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sound and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal. Hence, he submits to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The accident is not in dispute and the injuries suffered is not in dispute. In the accident, the appellant has suffered crush injury of right foot and ankle; right distal 1/3rd of right leg exposing right tibia bone muscles; bleeding with near total amputation of right distal leg. The appellant has examined himself and PW1 and has got marked Exhibits P1 to P15. The Doctor who was examined as PW2 has assessed the total disability of the appellant at 75% to right lower limb and 25% to the whole body. The appellant was a plumber by occupation and the accident has affected his livelihood. It is seen that the appellant has to be on functional prosthesis throughout. Further, the appellant has to undergo the ordeal for the rest of his life. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that some amount is required to be awarded under the head pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and an additional amount under the head prosthesis and its maintenance. Instead of awarding amounts under different heads, I am of the opinion that if an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded globally as the would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Rs.1,20,000/- globally is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced amount does not carry any interest. Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn