IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A.No. 5826 OF 2010 (MV) Between:
Sri. Harish, S/o. Rajanna, Age: 26 years, Occ: Vegetable business, R/o. Reddihalli Post, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. ... Appellant (By Sri. Suresh M Latur, Advocate) And:
1. Sri. B.N.Muniraj, S/o. Narayanappa, R/o. Basavapura Village, Satyavara Post, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bengaluru-25. ... Respondents (By Sri. Gourish Bhat, Advocate for Sri. A.M.Venkatesh, Advocate for R2;
Vide order dated 08.03.2016, notice to R1 dispensed with) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 15.12.2009 passed in MVC.No.376/2008 on the file of the Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal by the claimant calls in question the judgment and award dated 15.12.2009 made by MACT, Bengaluru allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.376/2008 whereby a compensation of Rs.9,48,056/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum thereon has been awarded subject to a usual condition of three year bank deposit. The challenge is founded on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 25.09.2007 at around 10:30 p.m., near Balaepura in Devanahalli Taluk, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. His claim petition having been allowed by the judgment and award in question, he is before this Court grieving that the compensation awarded is far below the entitlement.
3. To prove his claim, the claimant had got himself examined as PW.1 in addition to two independent witnesses PW.3 and PW.4. The Doctor B.Ramesh who was examined as PW.2 has deposed about the injuries and the nature of treatment. The police papers, RTO papers and medical records were got marked in the deposition of PW.1 and PW.2 as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. None was examined from the side of the respondents nor any document was marked as an exhibit neither.
4. The MACT, having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material borne out by record has awarded the compensation.
5. The first grievance of the claimant that the MACT has taken only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the injured claimant when the Lok Adalat Income Chart for the accident year 2008 mentions Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- and therefore the same needs to be accordingly enhanced, has some force. The values mentioned in the Chart being guideline values, this Court refixes the monthly income at Rs.3,500/- since the accident happened in the year 2007. With the altered monthly income value, the compensation for the loss of future earning capacity is re-worked out as under:-
3,500 x (30% occupational disability) x 12 x 18 = 2,26,800/-
6. The other grievance of the claimant that the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’ in a sum of Rs.25,000/- needs to be enhanced, is again substantiated and therefore the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain & suffering’ in a meagre sum of Rs.40,000/- stands enhanced to rs.75,000/-.
7. With the altered figures as above, the enhanced compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Compensation Awarded Compensation to be Awarded Enhancem ent
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and award are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,48,056/- to Rs.10,40,456/- i.e., Rs.92,400/- (Rupees ninety two thousand four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereof, all other terms and conditions of the award having been left unaltered.
Sd/- JUDGE RB