IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 2243 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. RAGHUNATH S/O SAMPAGIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.07, KHB QUARTERS 2ND BLOCK, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA BENGALURU – 560 011 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. V. NAIK, ADV. FOR SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND 1. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.41, 2ND FLOOR CRISTU COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI. VASANTH KUMAR S/O REVANNA, MAJOR R/AT NO.263/2 SUNKADAKATTE HOYSALA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 091.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.7.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2151/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.7.2013 rendered by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.2151/2011 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,23,558/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that on 27.02.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. when the petitioner was riding Honda Activa bearing No.KA-01-EA-2299 near High Grounds junction, from Windsor Manor Hotel towards Rajbhavan, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-6636 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Mallige Medical Centre, wherein first aid treatment was given and then he was shifted to Abhaya Hospital wherein he was treated as inpatient and after discharge he has also taken follow-up treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and not able to do work as earlier. He has spent amount towards his treatment, conveyance, nourishment etc. On all these grounds the claim petition came to be preferred before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. In response to notice, respondent No.2 did not appear and he was placed exparte all throughout the proceedings. Respondent No.1 entered appearance through the counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for consideration. In order to substantiate his case, petitioner himself got examined as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. Respondents did not chose to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,23,558/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation towards medicine and hospital charges and incidental charges. Further, the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation towards loss of earning for the laid up period, future medical expenses. The Tribunal has not considered to grant compensation towards shortening of life span.
The income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side as against the avocation of the petitioner. Hence, the same needs to be enhanced. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for respondent – insurer contends that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the petitioner himself in riding his scooter. He further contends that the Tribunal on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence has awarded just and fair compensation and the same does not call for interference of this Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having regard to the strenuous contentions as taken by learned counsel for the appellant and so also, learned counsel for respondent – insurer, the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a road traffic accident is not in dispute. On evaluation of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents such as Ex.P1 – FIR and complaint, Ex.P2 – charge sheet, Ex.P3 – mahazar, Ex.P4 – sketch, the Tribunal has held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle and due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
9. Ex.P5, wound certificate and Ex.P6, discharge summaries reveals that the petitioner has sustained comminuted fracture proximal tibial condyle right leg. X-ray and case sheet are produced as per Ex.P.15 and P16. He has taken treatment at Mallige Medical Centre and Abhaya Hospital on different occasions. PW.2 – Doctor has assessed physical impairment of the petitioner to the extent of 13% to the whole body. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal under different heads has awarded compensation of Rs.3,23,558/- to the petitioner. But, however, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and taking into consideration of the difficulties faced by the petitioner along with nature of work and the duration of the treatment taken and so also, the permanent disability suffered by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side. Therefore, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and so also, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it just and proper to award global compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons, I have to proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for global compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The global compensation shall not carry any interest. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2151/2011, is modified accordingly.
Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the global compensation, before the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE DKB