IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.5297/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATH RAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O GUNAPALA JAIN, RESIDING AT "POOJA NIVAS", HUDCO COLONY, NEAR GULIGA DAIVASTHANA, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574 104. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI. UMANATHA PAI S/O LATE SRINIVAS PAI, RESIDING AT "SRINATH"
BACKSIDE OF HSP OIL MILL, AJEAKR MARNE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574 104.
2 . NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY SRI RAM ARCADE, HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD, UDUPI-576 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.747/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, 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:
JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed to condone the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. Having regard to the nature of the case and accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support thereof, delay of 172 days in filing is condoned and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed and the matter is taken up for final disposal.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2018 passed in MVC No.741/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Karkala, wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be allowed in part and the compensation of Rs.1,72,650/- is awarded with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and directed the insurance company to deposit the same.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with their rankings as held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The facts relating to accident are that:
That on 5.12.2016 at 10.15 a.m. the petitioner was proceeding in his scooter Honda Activa MH.01.KA.6242 from Karkala to Yennehole on Karkala-Agumbe road and when he reached near Yennehole-Joduraste Cross road, at that time, the driver of Maruthi Wagon R. Car bearing registration No.KA.20.MA.659 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle. Due to which, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He was hospitalized and treated and was confined to bed for more than six months. Due to injuries he suffered permanent disability. He claimed compensation.
4. The respondents appeared on service of notice. 2nd respondent being the Insurance Company opposes the claim petition.
5. The learned member adjudicated the matter on the basis of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P31 on behalf of petitioner and Ex.R1 on behalf of Insurance Company, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has presented this appeal seeking enhancement.
6. Sri Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel for appellant/claimant would submit that compensation awarded by the learned Member is on the lower side and disproportionate to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has sustained fracture of lateral mallelous ® which is grievous in nature. PW3- Dr.Rizwan Ahmed deposed that he has treated the petitioner for the said injuries and as per Ex.P12 disability certificate petitioner suffered 10% disability
Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 30,000/-
Conveyance Rs. 3,000/-
Loss of future income Rs. 48,600/-
Total Rs. 1,72,651/-
8. Loss of future income is calculated at Rs.48,600/- wherein the monthly income is considered at Rs.15,000/- with disability to the whole body at 3% and applying 9 multiplier.
9. Considering the compensation awarded by the learned Member and the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the percentage of disability, I find the compensation granted by the learned Member is fair and equitable and it does not call for interference. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected at this stage itself.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE