IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.6198 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
Sri. K.T.Krishna @ Krishnamurthy S/o. Patel Thimmanna, Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Kachinakatte Village, Shivamogga Taluk & District, Pin-577 201. ... Appellant (By Sri. M V Maheswarappa, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Shanthakumar Shetty S/o. Jaganatha Shetty, Driver of Car bearing No.KA-53, Z-2436, R/o. H.No.713, 2nd "B" Main, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore-560 043.
2. Sanath Kumar Shetty S/o. J.S.Waderahobali, Major, Owner of Car Bearing No.KA-53-Z-2136, R/o. H.No.713, 2nd "B" Main, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore-560 043.
3. The Branch Manager Future General India Insurance Com. Ltd., 1st Floor, RPT House, Plot No.6, Sector-24, Sanpada, Turbhe, NAVI Mumbai-400 705, Maharashtra. ... Respondents (By Sri. Y P Venkatapathi, Advocate for R3 R1 & R2 – Notice dispensed with v/o dt: 25/4/2018) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 29.09.2015 passed in MVC No.600/2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Additional MACT-2, Shivamogga, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation and etc.
This MFA Coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The claimant-injured is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 29/09/2015 in M.V.C.No.600/2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Additional MACT-2, Shivamogga.
2. The injured-claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 01/02/2012 at about 10:30 A.M., when he was going towards KSRTC Bus Stand, Shivamogga, a Car bearing No.KA-53-Z-2436 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the injured, due to which he sustained fracture of Ankle Bone, Tenderness in the right wrist, injuries on his left hand, left elbow, left maxillary and other parts of the body. It is stated that he took treatment for eight days at Parvathi Nursing Home, Shivamogga. It is also stated that the injured has also taken the treatment as outpatient thereafter.
3. Respondent No.3-Insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the averments of the petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending Car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and also the insurance company denied the occurrence of accident.
4. The petitioner-injured examined himself as PW-1 and has produced 23 documents as Ex.P-1 to 23. Respondent No.3 produced a copy of the policy as Ex.R-1. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.42,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The compensation granted is on the heads of Pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future unhappiness, medical expenses, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc. The claimant-injured not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the compensation on various heads and the compensation awarded is on the lower side. He further submits that the claimant suffered fracture of Ankle Bone, Tenderness in the right wrist, injuries on his left hand, left elbow, left maxillary and other parts of the body and he had taken treatment at Parvathi Nursing Home, Shivamogga as inpatient for eight days. Thus, looking into the injuries, treatment taken by the injured-claimant and he was also out of employment for nearly three months and no compensation is awarded for the same. The Tribunal has also failed to award compensation under the heads of ‘Amenities’ and ‘Nourishment’.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award. He further submits that the claimant has not examined the Doctor and he has not established the injury or disability suffered by him. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsels and going through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation.
9. The injury suffered by the claimant in the accident involving Car bearing No.KA-53-Z-2436 is not in dispute in this appeal. The appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation.
10. The claimant has suffered fracture of Ankle Bone, Tenderness in the right wrist, injuries on his left hand, left elbow, left maxillary and other parts of the body, as noted in Discharge certificate and Wound certificate. Looking into the nature of injuries, the claimant was inpatient for eight days and he must have been out of employment for nearly three months. The accident is of the year 2012. This Court and the Lok Adalaths while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident cases would take notional income for the accidents of the year 2012 at Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence, taking Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant, he would be entitled for Rs.21,000/- as computation on the head of ‘laid up period’ which would be three months. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of ‘Amenities’. Looking into the nature of fractures suffered by the claimant, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of ‘Amenities’. Further, the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head of ‘Conveyance & Nourishment’ for which the claimant would be entitled for Rs.10,000/-.
Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.93,000/- as against Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ