IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT M.F.A NO.4585 OF 2010 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.4586 OF 2010 IN M.F.A NO.4585 OF 2010 BETWEEN SRI. EASWARACHAR, S/O VENKATARAMANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.H.C. CHALUVARAJU, NO.200, 3RD STAGE, 4TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE.
2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.21, ST. PATRICKS BLDG, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-25. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JWALAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 31/01/2012, R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.11.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.7802/2008 ON THE FILE VI ADDL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT AT BENGALURU CITY OF PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A NO.4586 OF 2010 BETWEEN SMT. SHANTHA, W/O NANJACHARI, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, R/O NO.8, 4TH BLOCK, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.H.C. CHALUVARAJU, NO.200, 3RD STAGE, 4TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE.
2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.21, ST. PATRICKS BLDG, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-25. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JWALAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 31/01/2012, R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.7803/2008 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT These appeals by the claimants call in question the judgment and awards dated 24.11.2009 made by MACT, Bangalore City (SCC2), allowing the claim petitions in M.V.C.Nos.7802/2008 and 7803/2008 whereby, a compensation of Rs.29,860/- and another compensation of Rs.6,000/-, respectively have been awarded with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum. The challenge is on the quantum of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case stated are:
(a) In a vehicular accident that happened on 12.07.2008 at around 5.45 P.M, because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-03:B-2724, the appellants sustained grievous injuries. Their claim petitions on the basis of the evidentiary material on record came to be partly allowed by MACT.
(b) Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, they have presented these appeals that are taken together for disposal since common questions of law and facts arise in these cases, as suggested at the Bar.
3a. The learned counsel for the appellant finds fault with the impugned judgment and awards stating that the monthly income of the injured claimants is taken at low rate compared to the then contemporary rates, especially when the claimant in M.V.C.No.7802/2008 was a carpenter by occupation and the claimant in M.V.C.No.7803/2008 was a tailor; the doctor who was examined as PW.6 had deposed about the nature of injuries, the kind of treatment and the medical disability of the injured persons which aspect has not been duly converted to by the MACT.
3b. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra contend that the MACT is a statutory expert body which has the advantage of accumulated wisdom which apparently is employed in recording the findings and therefore, the same do not warrant indulgence of this court, in the absence of any glaring defects being shown; the MACT having assessed the medical evidence, has rightly recorded a finding as to the occupational disability on the basis of the medical disability and therefore, that finding also does not call for interference at the hands of this court. So arguing, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the other side. I have perused the Appeal Papers and the LCR.
5. The contention of the claimant’s side that the MACT has taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month which is little below the contemporary labour market value has some force, regard being had to the Lok Adalat Monthly Income Chart which is ordinarily adopted; the short prescribes about Rs.4,500/- as monthly income in Bangalore City; the other contention that the percentage of disability ought to have been held little higher in view of not much challenged deposition of Dr.B. Ramesh-PW.6 again has some force who has specifically stated about the nature of the injuries namely fracture of right clavicle and the conservative treatment given for it. The MACT as an expert body, has also done its own exercise.
6. Keeping all the facts and circumstances of these cases, this court is of the considered opinion that a compensation of Rs.45,000/- in M.F.A.No.4585/2010 arising from M.V.C.No.7802/2008 and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- in M.F.A.No.4586/2010 arising from M.V.C.No.7803/2008 respectively, would be just and reasonable compensation, sans any break ups.
7. In the above circumstances, these appeals are allowed in part; the impugned judgment and awards made by the MACT are modified upwardly revising the compensation amount from Rs.29,860/- to Rs.45,000/- in M.F.A.No.4585/2010 and from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- i.e., in M.F.A.No.4586/2010; all other terms and conditions of the award are left unaltered.
The respondent-Insurer to make good the deficiency within four weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc