IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT M.F.A No.8675 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN SRI KAREEM, S/O LATE BABUSAB, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.874, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, BAPUJINAGAR, RPC LAYOUT, VENKATESHPURAM, BENGALURU-560 041. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.N. HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.RAGHUVEERA DONGARKERY, S/O SREENIVASA DONGARKERY, NO.6, 1ST MAIN, CHANDRAREDDY LAYOUT, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.N.SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; R.1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:5.6.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.4374/2008 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT In this appeal, the claimant calls in question the judgment and award dated 05.06.2010 rendered by the MACT, Bangalore, allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.4374/2008 whereby, a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum thereon, has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The happening of the accident on 31.12.2007 near Gottigere, Kungal Taluk, because of rash and negligent driving of a private bus bearing registration No.KA-01-C-3404 and consequent grievous injury suffered by the claimant are held to have been proved by the MACT, going by the pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material placed by them on record.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the award of compensation is too much on the meager side; the medical witness PW.8 had deposed as to the medical disability being 40 % to the whole body and 20 % to the lower limb; the MACT is not justified in denying the compensation without adjudging the occupational disability on that basis; the MACT failed to see that the claimant had produced all the medical bills which amounted to Rs.43,012/- whereas, the MACT has admitted the same only to the extent of Rs.15,000/- arbitrarily. So arguing, the claimant presses for allowing of the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned Panel Counsel for the Insurer vehemently contends that the MACT being a statutory adjudicatory body, has the advantage of accumulated wisdom which apparently is employed in the making of the award; ordinarily this court does not interfere with the findings of the MACT in the absence of any glaring defects; the appeal is liable to be dismissed in as much as what has been awarded as compensation for the injury sustained in the year 2007 is just and reasonable; doctor who was examined as PW.8 was not the one who had treated the claimant and the said doctor has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not consulted the doctor who had treated him. That being so, the counsel submits, there is no scope for indulgence of this court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-insurer. I have perused the Appeal Papers.
6. The contention of the claimant that the compensation awarded is on the lower side, is substantiated by the evidentiary material on record; admittedly, the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 12 days; he has also produced the medical records/bills to prima facie show that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.43,012/-; there was no reason to award only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenditure just by discounting the bills. Therefore, the expenditure part is upwardly quantified at Rs.30,000/-.
7. The doctor who is a medical witness was examined as PW.8; true it is that he was not the doctor who had treated the injuries of the claimant nor did he consult the doctor who treated him; but that itself is not sufficient to discount his version that the claimant had suffered 40 % medical disability to the lower limb, completely. Therefore, occupational disability is taken at 13 %. However, at this length of time, it is difficult to quantify the same with the changed factors. Therefore, a lump sum of Rs.30,000/- is refixed as compensation under this head. In respect of other claims, no case is made out by the claimant, as rightly pointed out by the learned Panel Counsel for the Insurer.
8. In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and award are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/- (One Lakh and Thirty Five Thousand Rupees) only with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum; all other terms and conditions having been retained intact.
The respondent-Insurer shall make good the award liability, within eight weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc