IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.446 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
Sri. Raju C. Badi, 29 years, S/o. Chandrakanth Badi, R/at No.206/61, II Main, Shiva Group of Company, Ramachandrapura, Bengaluru. …Appellant (By Sri. Pradeep Naik K., Advocate) AND 1. The Managing Director, BMTC, Central Office, K.H. Road/Double Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru -560 027.
2. The United Insurance Company Ltd., No.40, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Complex, Opp: Vanivilas Hospital, K.R. Road Fort, Bengaluru -560 002.
Rep. by its General Manager. …Respondents (By Sri. Ravish Benni, Advocate for R2; Sri. D. Vijayakumar, Advocate for R1) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.6081/2010 on the file of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member MACT -7, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Misc. First Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the delivered made the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Bengaluru in MVC No.6081/2010 dated 16.06.2011.
2. The claimant before the Tribunal has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Inter- alia contended in the claim petition that on 14.06.2010 at about 7.00 a.m., while he was crossing 4th outer ring of 22nd platform at Kempegowda Bus Stand, to board the BMTC bus, a BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F- 2561 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Further, he was admitted to K.C. General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru and treated as an inpatient for 12 days, he has spent lot of money towards medical expenses. He has suffered pain and agony and disability. Hence he has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
The respondent appeared and filed objections denying the claim of the petitioner and however, admitted that the insurance policy was in force and the Tribunal after framing of issues allowed the petitioner/claimant to adduce evidence and he has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 14 documents and also examined 2 more witnesses. The respondent did not enter into any defence except marking the policy as Ex.R-1 and after hearing the arguments, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record produced by the claimant, has awarded the compensation on the following heads:
3 Loss of earning on the basis of disability 4 Loss of earning during laid up period 5 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 6 Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 In Total 83,000 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel Sri. Ravish Benni, appearing for respondent No.2 -insurance company.
4. There is no dispute in respect of the accident in question and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and liability was also not disputed by the insurance company, except the quantum. As on the date of accident, the policy was in force.
5. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, in my considerable opinion, the amount on various heads awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient, as the injury sustained by the claimant/appellant was grievous in nature. Therefore, in addition to the award passed by the tribunal, in respect of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in addition to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Though the medical bill was produced for Rs.9,160/-, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for reducing the amount to Rs.8,000/-
. Therefore, I propose to award another Rs.2,000/- in addition to the medical expenses awarded by the tribunal.
6. As per the evidence of PW2 Dr. Avinash Parthasarathy, the appellant is suffering from 7% of permanent physical disability towards his lower limb. But, the tribunal has considered only 3% and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of future earning capacity due to the disability. In this regard, instead of considering the percentage of disability, this Court proposed to award Rs.15,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of earning capacity. As regards to the loss of amenities, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. By looking at the fracture and disability suffered by the claimant, it is proposed to award an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of amenities and future unhappiness. In all Rs.42,000/- is enhanced as against Rs.83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.6081/2010 on the file of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member MACT -7, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby modified. The claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.,1,25,000/- instead Rs.83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Accordingly the appeal is disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE BVK