IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.7644 OF 2014 [MV] BETWEEN SRI. NAGARAJA, S/O. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE) AND 1. S.K. YOGA, S/O. KALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. SHAMBHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COM. LTD, CHANDANA COMPLEX, HARSHA MAHAL MARG, HASSAN-573 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, ARKALGUD, 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 Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant in MVC No.62/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2011, the appellant and another (claimant in MVC No.14/2011) were walking near Nehru Nagar Circle. At that time, a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-13-W-0669 came from Doddabemmati-Konanur Road side, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against both of them, due to which they sustained grievous injuries. The appellant was treated as an inpatient in Sanjeevini Co-operative Hospital, Hassan.
4. It is the case of the appellant that due to the accidental injury, he suffered permanent disability and prior to the accident, he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and after the accident he is not able to do the said work in view of the disability suffered by him.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side and also submits that the total compensation awarded is not commensurate with the injuries sustained and the disability suffered by the appellant. Accordingly, he seeks to enhance the compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company on the other hand contends that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and based on the evidence and material on record and the same does not call for any interference and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
7. The accident in question involving the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-13-W-0669 and the appellant sustaining injuries in the accident is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that that Respondent No.2 herein is the Insurer of the said vehicle and there was a valid insurance policy.
8. According to the appellant, he was aged about 35 years and he was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from his oral testimony, there is no other satisfactory evidence to show that he was having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. However, considering that the accident is of the year 2011, I deem it appropriate to take the notional income of the appellant at Rs.6,500/- per month.
9. The doctor is examined as PW-4. According to the wound certificate – Ex.P8, the appellant had sustained displaced fracture left greater trochanter, fracture of sacral ala, lacerated wound 7x5 cm., over penis, contusion 7x5 cm over right side of forehead, abrasion over right side of chest and lacerated wound 6x1 cm over poster scalps.
10. According to PW-4, there is a disability to an extent of 24% to the waist and left thigh. The Tribunal has taken the disability to the whole body at 6%. Considering the nature of injuries, I deem it proper to assess the functional disability at 8% to the whole body. The appellant was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is 16. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.99,840/- (Rs.6,500x12x16x8/100) as against Rs.51,840/- awarded towards ‘loss of income due to disability’.
11. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’. No compensation has been awarded under any other heads.
12. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 20 days. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by him and the period of treatment undergone, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ and Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head ‘conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment’. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,64,840/- as against Rs.66,840/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Arkalgud in MVC No.62/2011 is hereby modified.
The appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,64,840/- as against Rs.66,840/- 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 is directed to deposit entire amount within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE snc