IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV M.F.A. No.3211/2013 (MV) Between:
Sri Benaka S., S/o P.R. Shivakumarswamy, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.728, 46th Cross, Jayanagara 8th Block, Near Sangam Circle, Bangalore – 560 082. ... Appellant (By Sri Siddappa S. Joochani, Advocate) And:
1. Sri Shivakumar M.K., S/o Krishnamurthy M., Major, R/at No.159, Doddamma Temple Street, Next Door, 1st Cross, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.
(Owner of motor cycle Bajaj CT-100 bearing Reg. No.KA-01-Y-8387).
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., No.343, 1st Floor, 7th Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore – 560 034, Reptd. by its Divisional Manager.
3. Sri C.K. Shakeer, S/o Abooty, Major, M/s. Vinod Roadways, No.83/15 (204), G.G. Block, Hootagalli, Mysore District – 573 210, (Owner of Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-09-A-8487).
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Code No.100802, BO, Thalassery, PB No.97, Asheequa Towers, Narangapuram, Thalassery – 670 101, Reptd. by its Branch Manager. ... Respondents (By Sri P. Suresh, Advocate for M/s. P. Suresh & Associates, for R-1;
Sri P.S. Jagadish, Advocate for R-2 & R-4; R-3 Served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed in MVC No.8646/2010 on the file of the VII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for final hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The claimant has challenged the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.8646/2010 dated 9.1.2013 whereby the claim petition came to be allowed and compensation of Rs.1,40,500/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization was ordered.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The facts made out by the claimant are that on 18.6.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. when the petitioner/claimant was proceeding on his motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-05-EM-4894 on Bengaluru- Mysuru Road near Balaji Transport Godown, a motor cycle came from behind and collided with the petitioner’s bike. The petitioner is stated to have sustained injuries and was admitted initially to Rajarajeshwari Medical and General Hospital, Bengaluru and then shifted to Sevakshetra Hospital. The petitioner states that he was an Engineering student undergoing the course of B.E. Electrical at Rajarajeshwari Engineering College and states that due to the injuries suffered in the accident he has suffered disability and it has affected his studies. The petitioner had examined the doctor as PW.1, got examined records relating to the police case and has also got marked the wound certificate and other records.
4. The primary contention raised in the appeal is that the Tribunal has not taken note of disability suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner states that the doctor who was examined as PW.2 had filed his affidavit and it is clearly stated that the disability for the left hand was about 60%. It comes out from the evidence on record that the petitioner’s left hand was injured. No doubt there has been cross examination of PW.2 and it is suggested that the petitioner was right handed person. But apart from the said fact, nothing else has been elicited in cross examination so as to falsify the evidence of the Doctor. Hence, the petitioner has claimed that due to the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to complete his semester and had to take re-admission.
5. Having heard the counsel on both sides, the question for consideration is as under:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement in light of the grounds made out in the appeal memorandum?”
6. At the time the matter was taken up for final consideration, the primary contention of the counsel for the claimant that was put forward is that despite the evidence on record relating to disability, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the said head. However, it is not in dispute that the doctor -
PW.1 has led in evidence and has also stated regarding the disability to the hand and has stated that there was a disability to the extent of 60%. It would be premature at this point of time to envisage the impact of this disability on the petitioner’s ability to work as the petitioner at the time of the accident was still a student undergoing the Engineering course. However, taking note of the nature of the injury it would be appropriate to enhance the award of compensation under the head of loss of amenities. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation only at Rs.1,15,000/- under the loss of amenities. Looking at the nature of injury to the left hand and taking note of the evidence of PW.2 and also noticing that the disability is quantified at 60%, it would be just and appropriate to enhance the compensation by an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
7. In so far as the claim of the petitioner/claimant for compensation on the ground that he had lost an academic year, finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference as there is no sufficient evidence to accept the claim that the petitioner had suffered loss of an academic year.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-. The same would be payable by the insurer with interest at 6% from the date petition till the date of realization. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days of date of release of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp