IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA NO.9633/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI HALESHAPPA S/O HALASIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A KUNDUR VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK 577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
201-208 CRYSTAL PLAZA OPP: INFINITY MALL LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI 400058 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ... APPELLANT 2. SRI SIDESHWAR S/O H.G. NANJAPPA PROPRIETOR OF MARULASIDDESHWAR MAIN ROAD, KUNDUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 577219 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.200/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHARA, 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 This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 5.5.2010 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 17-Y-3568 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
5. As per wound certificate Ex.P-5, the claimant had sustained facture to traumatic prochantric, fracture of right femur. The injuries sustained and treatment underwent by the claimant are also evident from discharge summary Ex.P-10, medical bills and prescriptions Ex.P-11 to 13, X-rays Exs.P-14 and corroborated by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor, who were examined as PWs-1 and 2 respectively. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 30% to the limb.
6. Considering the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. As Rs.37,715/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘medical expenses’ is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
8. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days in Adarsha Health Care, Davanagere. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.10,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘incidental expenses’ such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
9. The claimant claims to have been working as a agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, but the same is not established by producing any documents. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 42 years, year of accident as 2010 and his avocation as agriculturist, his income could be assessed at Rs.5,500/- per month as against Rs.4,500/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. The nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 5 months and therefore a sum of Rs.27,500/- is awarded towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in his future life, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. The claimant is aged about 42 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 14. His income is assessed at Rs.5,500/- per month. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that claimant has suffered disability of 30% to the lower limb. So the disability caused to the whole body is 1/3rd of the disability caused to the lower limb, which comes to 10%. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.92,400/- (5,500 x 12 x 14 x 10/100) and it is awarded as against Rs.75,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-
HEADS Rs.
Pain and sufferings 45,000 Medical Expenses 37,715 Incidental expenses 10,000 Loss of income during laid up period 27,500 Loss of amenities 25,000 Loss of future income 92,400 TOTAL 2,37,615
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.51,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DM