IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.10408/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH SON OF LATE LINGAIAH @ THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJU S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI NAGESH S C SON OF SHAMBUGOWDA R/A SOMANATHAPURA VILLAGE HAKKURU POST VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.
2. IPCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., No.2, 1ST FLOOR SNR ARACADE, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS PEENYA, BANGALORE – 560 057.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.40/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this matter is listed for Admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2013 passed in MVC No.40/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, wherein the claim petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act came to be allowed in part granting the compensation of Rs.1,83,598/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization and holding that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred to with reference to their rankings as it stood before the Tribunal.
3. The proceeding before the Tribunal came to be initiated because of a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.12.2010 at 9.00 a.m. when petitioner was riding his scooter and proceeding towards Kailancha village and on the way a Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.42.H.683 was rash and negligent in its riding and dashed against the scooter of the petitioner. Because of which, petitioner fell down along with the pillion rider and sustained injuries on his hands, head and fingers. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and incurred expenditure and he claimed compensation.
4. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company and 1st respondent remained absent and set exparte.
5. The learned member of the Tribunal was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P15.
6. The learned Member after hearing the parties, considered the case on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on record and partly allowed the petition and granted the compensation as stated above, which is challenged in this appeal by the claimant as insufficient.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Raju, would submit that the sufferings of the claimant because of the accidental injuries are more and it has made the daily activity and life style of claimant hapazard and the compensation awarded is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, for Insurance Company would submit that reckoning of monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, percentage of disability taken at 5% are in accordance with the established norms and there is no occasion for enhancement of compensation.
9. Basically, the road traffic accident dated 13.12.2010 is not disputed. The claimant suffered three injuries, viz., one on his head, other one on the right forearm and 3rd one to his two fingers on the right hand and as per X ray, he suffered fracture of two bones in his right forearm and Doctor has assessed the disability at 15% to his upper limb and insofar as total body disability is considered at 5%. The monthly income is considered at Rs.4,500/- which appears to be on the lower side and the same ought to have been considered at Rs.5,400/-. Insofar as disability is concerned, I find that the learned Member has acted in proper manner. Thus, loss of future income would be Rs.48,600/- (Rs.5,400/- x 12 x 18 x 5%= 48,600/-) instead of Rs.40,500/-.
10. However, the learned Member is right in awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/- for pain and agony; Rs.56,098/- for medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for rest, nourishment and other charges and hence, it does not call for interference. However, compensation awarded towards future medical expenses is increased from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-; loss of amenities is increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, laid up period is increased from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the modified
Total Less: awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement Rs.2,24,698/-
Rs.1,83,598/- Rs. 41,100/-
11. Thus, the learned Member was right in allowing the petition in part, but erred in quantifying the compensation which deserves to be increased from Rs.1,83,598/- to Rs. Rs.2,24,698/- and enhancement would be Rs.41,100/-.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 23.08.2013 passed in MVC No.40/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, is hereby set aside to modify the same by enhancing compensation from Rs.1,83,598/- to Rs.2,24,698/-. The enhancement would be Rs.41,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including the enhanced compensation with interest, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE