IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6834 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.DEVENDRAPPA S/O. LATE. BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.283, RASTAPUR MAIN, RASTAPUR, SHARAPUR TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. R LAKSHMANA, ADV.) AND:
1. NIRUPAM MAITY S/O. ASHOK MAITY, R/AT NO. 334-1, SRIGANDADAKAVAL, BANGALORE – 560 096 2. THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, NO. 141, V FLOOR, SHANTHI TOWERS, EAST NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 043 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:28.3.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2816/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, 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:
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 137 days in filing this appeal. IA.I of 2016 is filed seeking condonation of delay. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA.I of 2016 allowed. Delay of 137 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned counsel seeks leave of the court to dispense notice to respondent No.1. Submission is placed on record. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
2. The petitioner made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore for the accidental injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 30th June, 2015. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 06th February, 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.2,35,093/-.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that prior to accident the appellant was working as a mason and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He submits that the accident has made the appellant fragile and he is not in a position to work as was he working prior to accident. He submits that the compensation awarded under all the heads are meagre and hence seeks enhancement in the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurer supports the order of the Tribunal and submits to dismiss the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The accident is not in dispute. The appellant has produced Exhibit P1 to P17 which are FIR, Complaint, sketch, spot mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate, charge sheet and Exhibits P8 to P14 which are hospital records, X ray films, etc. Nothing has been elicited by the respondent in the cross-examination. As per the wound certificate, the appellant sustained fracture to the leg, clavicle, etc. He was inpatient between 30th June 2015 to 14th July 2015. It is contended that because of the injury, the appellant cannot work as he was working prior to accident and it has taken toll on the livelihood. The petitioner is aged 52 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant cannot attend to work as he was attending to prior to accident, in my considered opinion, if globally another Rs.85,000/- is awarded it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, a global compensation of Rs.85,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced amount does not carry any interest.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn