IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.3441 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. C.N. VIKAS, S/O. M. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. CHANDAGIRI KOPPALU VILLAGE, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, PIN-572 101. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH FOR SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATES) AND 1. SRI. MAHADEVA, S/O. CHIKKANNEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O. KUDALAKUPPE VILLAGE, K. SHETTIHALLI HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN-572 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., J.L.B. ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE-570 018. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2016) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT SRIRANGAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
The appellant is the injured-claimant. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,04,200/- with interest at 6% per annum (excluding the future medical expenses) for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.06.2012 about 2.00 pm., when he was going on the left side of Ballenahalli-Chandagiri Koppal Road by walk, at that time, motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-10-H-3142 ridden by its rider came from Kudalakuppe towards Chandarigikoppalu in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, on account of which, he sustained injuries and shifted to Vikram Jeev Hospital, Mysore. A surgery was conducted by fixing plate and screw and he took treatment as an inpatient for about four days.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was managing the Sugar Cane Crusher business of his father. He was also an MBA graduate as well as an agriculturist. He was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month after deducting all his expenses. Due to the accident, he is not able to work due to the disability he has now suffered. He submits that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not commensurate with the injuries sustained by the appellant and therefore, seeks to enhance the compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded a just and reasonable compensation which does not warrant interference and accordingly, seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. The accident in question involving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-10-H-3142 which was insured with the 2nd respondent and in the said accident, the appellant sustaining injuries has not been disputed. According to the appellant, he was an MBA graduate as well as an agriculturist and he was having an income of Rs.20,000/- per month by managing the Sugar Cane crusher business of his father. He was examined as PW1. In his evidence, he has stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month from Sugar Cane crusher business. He has not placed any documents to show that he is an MBA graduate. The claimant has got examined PWs2 to 4 to establish that he was looking after the Sugar Cane Crusher business. PW4 is none other than the father of the claimant. However, apart from the oral testimony, there is no convincing evidence to show that the appellant was having an income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, it cannot be held that the appellant was having an income of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the year of accident, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.7,500/- per month.
6. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by Vikram Jeev Hospital, Mysore. The same goes to show that the appellant had sustained swelling and deformity of his left leg. The appellant has sustained fracture of lower shaft of left tibia. He was an inpatient between 10.06.2012 and 14.06.2012. The appellant was re-admitted on 25.09.2012 and on that day dynamization of IMIL nail was made. PW5 is the orthopedic surgeon. He has deposed that the appellant has sustained spiral fracture of left tibia distal 3rd and he made treatment through CRIF with ETN (Synthes) for left tibia. PW5 has assessed the functional disability to the left lower limb at 36.43% and to the whole body at 12.14%. Considering the aforesaid evidence, the disability suffered by the appellant to the whole body is assessed at 12%.
7. The appellant was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. The income having been assessed at Rs.7,500/- per month and the disability at 12%, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs.7,500x12x18x12%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,51,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Considering the injuries and disability suffered by the appellant and the period of treatment undergone, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the head food and attendant charges etc., the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation of Rs.7,000/- awarded under the head loss of income during the period of treatment is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head loss of enjoyment of life, the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The compensation awarded towards medical expenses and future medical expenses are maintained. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,05,400/- as against Rs.3,04,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 03.01.2015 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapattana in MVC No.29/2013 is hereby modified.
The appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,05,400/- as against Rs.3,04,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is granted six weeks time to file vakalath.
Sd/- JUDGE snc