IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.4727 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN THIMMANAIKA, S/O. LATE APPAJI THIMMAAIKA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT HL 120, RAJENDRA NAGAR, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 007.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. THIMMANAIKA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND 1. SRI. N. RAMAIAH RAI, BADGE NO.8584, SON OF SRI. NARAYANA RAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT #134, SHREENAGARA KALYANAGIRI POST, SATHAGALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 019.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, BANNIMANTAP, CITY DEPOT, MYSURU-570 015.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.551/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in MVC No.551/2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Prl. Small Causes and MACT, Mysore, wherein a total compensation of Rs.65,528/- has been awarded to the appellant – claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. I have heard the appellant/party-in-person and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 30.01.2014, at about 8.15 p.m., when he was standing near Rajendranagar Bus Stand, Mysuru after attending his masonry work, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-4514 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and the back wheel of the bus ran over his left leg and he sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Hospital for treatment. It is the further case of the appellant that he was doing masonry work and earning about Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the accident, he is not in a position to do his work, in view of the permanent disability suffered by him.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant got himself examined as PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked through his evidence. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent-Insurance Company. RW-1 i.e., the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined on behalf of the respondent. However, no documents were produced and marked.
5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,528/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization under the following heads:
Medical expenses Rs.30,528-00 Pain, injury, food nourishment and other misc. expenses. Rs,15,000-00 Loss of amenities, enjoyment Of life and discomforts Rs.15,000-00 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000-00 TOTAL Rs.70,528-00 Less already paid amount Rs.5,000-00 Rs.65,528-00 6. According to the appellant, he sustained permanent disability on account of the accidental injuries and he is not able to do any work. He would submit that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and seeks to enhance the compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-KSRTC would contend that the appellant has sustained only one fracture as per the wound certificate marked as Ex.P-6 and other injuries are simple injuries. He would submit that the appellant has not examined the doctor to establish that he has suffered any permanent disability. Therefore, he submits that the total compensation awarded is based on the evidence and material adduced before the Tribunal and the same does not call for any interference and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
8. Perusal of the wound certificate marked at Ex.P-6 goes to show that the appellant suffered bone deformity swelling and tenderness in the middle of left leg. According to the claimant, the said injury caused disability. The Tribunal after observing that the orthopedic surgeon has not been examined to substantiate the contentions raised by the claimant to prove the disability, has not awarded any amount for disability. The discharge summary marked at Exs.P10 and 11 goes to show that the appellant was admitted to the hospital and he was an inpatient from 23.09.2014 to 12.10.2014 and again he was admitted to the hospital and took treatment from 30.01.2014 to 17.02.2014. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment taken by the appellant in the hospital, sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded for pain, injury and suffering, food nourishment and other expenses are on the lower side, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards conveyance, attendant charges and other miscellaneous expenses. A sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and discomfort’ is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
9. The appellant has sought Rs.20,000/- for removal of implants. But as noted supra, there is no evidence of the doctor to show that any implants have been inserted to the affected limb. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, the same is just and reasonable. The compensation of Rs.30,528/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills, which is also just and proper. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,15,528/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,16,000/- as against Rs.65,528/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Mysuru in MVC No.551/2014 is hereby modified.
The appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- as against Rs.65,528/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit entire amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/- JUDGE snc