IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.130/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O KADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NAVALE HOSUR VILLAGE BAGUR HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.G V NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI RAJAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NUGGEHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DIST.
2. THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD B.M. ROAD, HASSAN.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R2 R1- NOTICE D/W V/O DT: 19/06/2015) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.22/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed in MVC No.22/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Chennarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) is before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 13.09.2009, when the claimant along with his friend was returning to his village in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/R-7121, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-13/A-5152 dashed to the motorcycle, due to which, the claimants suffered grievous injuries. He states that he was taken to SSM Hospital, Hassan for treatment. The claimants states that he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.a., from agricultural work. He also states that he was inpatient for a period of 9 days for the treatment to the injuries suffered in the accident.
3. On issuance of notice, both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statement. The first respondent stated that the driver of the auto was not responsible for the accident. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It is also stated that the vehicle is insured with the second respondent/insurer. The second respondent in its written statement denied the involvement of the auto bearing registration No.KA-
13/A-5152 in the alleged accident in addition to denying the claim petition averments.
4. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2-doctor apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P62. On behalf of the respondent/insurer, Policy is marked as Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciating the materials on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization on the following heads:
The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal when compared to the injuries suffered by the claimant is on the lower side. He submits that Ex.P3-wound certificate would indicate that the injuries sustained by the claimant. He states that the claimant sustained injuries to right Zygoma and lateral wall of right orbit. He submits that due to the injuries, the claimant suffers difficulty in chewing hard food and that he is unable to do the work in the field in sun light. It is his submission that the doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 10%. But the Tribunal failed to assess the disability for awarding compensation. It is his further submission that the compensation awarded on various heads is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. He further submits that even though the doctor has opined that the claimant suffers from 10% permanent disability, the Tribunal looking to the nature of injuries and the avocation has rightly not assessed whole body disability for the purpose of awarding the compensation. The injuries caused to the claimant would not come in the way of his working as agricultural coolie. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
10. Answer to the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident that took place on 13.09.2009 involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 13/R-7121 and auto bearing registration No.KA-13/A- 5152 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has suffered injuries to right periorbital oedema, contusion over maxillary region, lacerated wound over right side of forehead, fracture of zygoma, antero lateral wall of maxillary antum, lateral wall orbit on right side and abrasion over both knees.
11. Ex.P3 wound certificate would indicate the injuries suffered by the claimant. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days for taking treatment to the injuries suffered in the accident. The doctor opined that the claimant suffers from 10% disability. The injuries suffered by the claimant is to the joint i.e., fracture of Zygoma. The claimant states that he is an agricultural coolie. But the injuries suffered by him would not come in the way of his working as coolie. Thus, the Tribunal is justified in not assessing the whole body disability when compared to the injuries sustained by the claimant. However, the compensation awarded on the head of loss of amenities at Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. The claimant would be entitled to another sum of Rs.10,000/- on the said head. As stated above, the claimant was inpatient for 9 days. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of attendant and conveyance charges, food and nourishment, to which the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed in MVC No.22/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Chennarayapatna is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms