IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT MFA NO.1354 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. S R DINESHGOUDA S/O RUDRAPPA GOWDA (AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER 19/08/2013) AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS M.P.M. WATCHER WORK R/O KODURU HOSANAGAR SHIMOGA DIST.-571104. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.H K BASAVARAJ, ADV.) AND:
1. PARASHURAM G DAMODARA AGED MAJOR BUS DRIVER R/O KOOSNURU HANGAL TQ., HAVERI DIST. DRIVER OF BUS NO.KA-40 F/514 BADGE NO.6033.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K S R T C SHIMOGA DEPOT SHIMOGA -577201 REG. BUS BEARING NO. REG. NO.KA.40/F-514.
3. THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE DIVISION K G I D NEAR HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 1.
4. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OFFICE 1001/56 JAYALAKSHMI MANSION 2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 10 POLICY NO.423200/31/2011/9376.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 SMT. SWETHA ANANDA, ADV. FOR R2 SMT. M GEETHA, HCGP FOR R3 SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R4) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.63/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAGAR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation assailing the judgment and award dated 5.6.2013 passed in MVC No.63/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Member, Additional MACT, Sagar.
2. The appellant / petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered on 25.09.2009. It is stated that the petitioner was travelling in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14/R-3866, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40/F-514 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Motor Cycle causing injuries to the petitioner. That the petitioner was working as watcher in Mysore Paper Mills (for Short MPM), Bhadravathi and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of accident. Further it is stated that the claimant suffered injuries of laceration over the anterior aspect of right ankle, laceration on medial aspect of right ankle, type II open right tibial plafond fracture and right fibula fracture.
3. On service of summons respondent No.2 – KSRTC appeared and filed its objections contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and excessive. The claimant examined himself and PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked on his behalf and respondent marked documents Exs.C1 to C3. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,19,700/- on the following heads :-
1. For pain and sufferings, mental agony - Rs.25,000/-
2. For conveyance attendant and nutrition - Rs.15,000/-
3. For Medical expenses - Rs. 4,100/-
4. For loss of earning during treatment period - Rs.12,000/-
5. For loss of amenity - Rs.10,000/-
6. For loss of future income - Rs.33,600/-
7. For future medical expenses - Rs.20,000/-
Total - Rs.1,19,700/-
4. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the appeal, material on record including the LCR.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal ought to have accepted Ex.P.12 – the Salary Certificate, produced by the claimant wherein it shows that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- as Wacher at MPM. Further he contends that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-. It is his submission that compensation awarded on various heads is also on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has granted just compensation, which requires no interference by this Court.
8. The accident is of the year 2009. The appellant/claimant would claim that he was working as Watcher in the MPM. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.12 Certificate which would indicate the salary of the claimant for the months of September, October 2010 to December 2010, January 2011, February 2011. The author of the said document is not examined. The document at Ex.P.12 does not inspire the confidence of the Court, since it is hand written and it is not in the official format. It indicates the signature of the Assistant Forest Officer and the said person is not examined and how Assistant Forest Officer is connected with MPM is not explained. Hence Ex.P.12 cannot be considered for determining the income of the appellant/claimant. Therefore, the Court will have to determine the income on notional basis. For the accidents of the year 2009, this Court and Lok Adalath would normally take the notional income at Rs.5,000/-. Hence I deem it appropriate to take the monthly income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.5,000/- to determine the compensation on the ‘Head loss of future income’. If Rs.5,000/- is taken as monthly income of appellant/claimant and taking into consideration 5% disability as pointed out by PW.2 – the Doctor it would be Rs.5,000 x 12 x 14 x 5% = Rs.42,000/- (Rs.42,000/- less Rs.33,600/- = Rs.8,400/-) as against Rs.33,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Looking into the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant and as he was inpatient for 21 days, I am of the view, that the compensation granted on the head of pain and suffering, conveyance, attendant and nutrition, loss of amenity is on the lower side. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded on the head ‘Pain and suffering’, a sum of Rs.6,000/- on the head ‘Conveyance, attendant and nutrition’, a sum of Rs.3,000/- on the head ‘Loss of earning during treatment period’ and a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the head ‘Loss of amenity’ in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimant would be entitled for Rs.37,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*/CT:BMS