IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS M.F.A.NO.2934 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN SRI RAMAKRISHNA M S/O MADDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 EYARS, R/AT 87, MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, KALLAPPA LAYOUT, B CHANNASANDRA, BANASAWADI POST, K.R.PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560043 (BY SRI S G HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND ... APPELLANT 1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX, LEVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 2. MURTHY B N R/A NO.48, INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENT 1ST BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN OMBR LAYOUT, BANASAWADI BENGALURU-560043 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.9.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4597/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ACMM & 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The claimant/appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.4597/2010, dated 13.09.2011.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that inspite of the Tribunal accepting the contention of the claimant that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, as he was working as Assistant at Sun Microsistems India Pvt. Ltd and having accepted the documentary and oral evidence furnished by the claimant supported by oral evidence submitted by an officer from Sun Microsistems India Pvt. Ltd, the Tribunal has erred in proceeding to award a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month towards ‘Loss of income during the laid up period’ for three months.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the evidence on record which would substantiate that the claimant/appellant, who was aged about 40 years at the time of accident has undergone surgery of removal and implant and the doctor has opined that the claimant is suffering from 120 degree of flexion movement in the knee. Therefore, the doctor opined that there is 8% loss of mobility in the left lower limb and 45% loss of stability component and concluded that because of mal-united fracture, 30% permanent disability in the lower limb and 10% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 6% contrary to the opinion of the expert. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Pain and Suffering’ is on lower side and the same should be enhanced by Rs.5,000/-. Similarly Rs.8,000/- only was awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Loss of amenities’, without having regard to the difficulties that the appellant would suffered because of the disability, in the future, the same is sought to be enhanced.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/ Insurer and perused the lower Court records.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant is of substance. The Tribunal having gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary with respect to the salary slips and bank statement produced by the claimant, could not have ignored the evidence placed on record. The Sun Microsistems India Pvt. Ltd, is an established company and the fact of salary being received by the claimant and paid by the company has been substantially evidenced by production of salary slips and bank statement. In the opinion of this Court, the evidence tendered is sufficient to hold that the claimant was indeed earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Since, the laid up period is taken as three months, the award under the head of ‘Loss of income during the laid up period’ should have been Rs.36,000/- (12,000x3=36,000), as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Having regard to the disability caused to the claimant and the fact that he was only aged about 40 years when the accident occurred, a sum of Rs.8,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of amenities’ is at the lower side. Therefore, this Court holds that the compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of amenities’ deserves to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded under ‘Pain and suffering’ is also on the lower side and the same could be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. The compensation awarded under other heads shall remain unaltered. In all, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,30,200/- to Rs.1,94,200/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.64,000/-.
7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.64,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation of Rs.1,30,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
The 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. Since, the 1st respondent is the Insurer, the enhanced amount is directed to be paid by the Insurer and the Insurer shall deposit the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Out of the enhanced amount payable to the claimant/appellant, 50% shall be invested in his name for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest thereon from time to time. The balance shall be disbursed to the petitioner through an Account payee cheque on proper identification.
The judgment and award dated 13.09.2011, passed by the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in M.V.C. No.4597/2010, is modified accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE DL