IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT M.F.A. NO.7101/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. D PRAVEEN S/O DHARMAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 6TH CROSS ROAD 1ST MAIN ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE-91.
(BY SRI. SHARANAPPA GOUDA MALI PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO-No.1114/63, 2ND FLOOR THAKUR COMPLEX, S C ROAD YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-22.
2. SRI BAILANJANAPPA @ BYLANJANEYA S/O BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.248, 8TH MAIN DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-64.
NOW R/AT NO.247/1, BYLAPPA BUILDING OPP. SWATHI PETROL BANK ... APPELLANT NELAGADANAHALLI ROAD BANGALORE-73.
(BY SRI.K N SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS R2 NOTICE IS D/W AS PER THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2012) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.489/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment and award dated 15.07.2011 passed in MVC No.489/2010 on the file of the Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore.
2. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 06.09.2009, when the petitioner was traveling as pillion rider along with one Gopalakrishna to go to Hegganahalli in Motor Cycle bearing No.KA.02.HT.7945. When they came at Brindavana Junction a Tata Sumo bearing No.KA.02 C.9384 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. The claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries, which are as follows:-
a. Abrasion over the scalp and face b. Blunt injury to the anterior aspect of the chest c. Blunt injury to thoracic space d. Abrasion over the both knee joint”
The claimant states that he was working as a Supervisor at Prime Progression Export and Services Pvt. Ltd., and earing Rs.12,092/- per month.
3. On service of summons the 1st respondent - Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections denying the petition averments. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. It is also stated that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle. The claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P13. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. The tribunal on assessing the material on record awarded global compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the appeal papers.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimant had incurred medical expenses of Rs.24,540/- and the Tribunal has awarded global compensation of only a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, loss of income during laid up period and on the head conveyance and nourishment. He submits that the claimant was inpatient for 10 days from 6.09.2009 to 16.09.2009, without considering the same the Tribunal has proceeded to award global compensation of a sum of Rs.30,000/. Hence he submits that the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the claimant has not examined the Doctor to substantiate his injuries. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference.
7. The claimant has suffered the injuries as mentioned above. The claimant was inpatient for 10 days i.e., from 6.9.2009 to 16.09.2009. As he had sustained head injury, he has spent a sum of Rs.24,540/- towards medical expenses. The discharge summary Ex.P.10 would indicate multiple deep abrasion on the face, scalp mid point, occipital region on left side of femur, abrasion of right knee and left side of face.
8. Looking into the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the claimant, I am of the view, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the heads of pain and suffering and other heads. Thus the claimant would be entitled for compensation as follows :-
a. Pain and suffering - Rs.25,000/-
b. Loss of amenities - Rs.20,000/-
c. Medical expenses - Rs.24,540/-
d. Loss of income during laid-up period for two months - Rs.22,000/-
e. Conveyance, nourishment and other expenses - Rs.15,000/-
Total - Rs.1,06,540/-
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.1,06,540/- as against compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms