IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR M.F.A. NO.3533/2017 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. SAMANDAIAH S/O LATE PRAKASH @ CHANNAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF: VEERAIAHNADODDI, KOLAGANDANAHALLI, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADV.) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.
…APPELLANT …RESPONDENT (BY SMT P.C.SUNITHA, ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5118/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Since the matter lies in a narrow compass with the consent of the learned counsels, appeal is taken up for disposal at the stage of Admission itself.
3. The appellant is the claimant in MVC No.5118/2015 on the file of the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru and is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded for the injury suffered in the accident that occurred on 24.11.2015 at 7.00 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/F-184. The factum of accident is not disputed by the respondent.
4. The injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant/appellant is also not in dispute. The tribunal after taking into consideration the medical evidence and after examining the wound certificate and evidence of the doctor who is examined as PW3 has recorded the injuries suffered by the appellant as below:-
pleased to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings, adopting a notional income at Rs.7,000/- has granted a sum of Rs.21,000/- for laid up period and it awarded a medical expenditure of Rs.13,500/-. It has also awarded future medical expenses at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and has calculated a loss of future income by calculating the disability at 10% to the whole body and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,43,000/-. It has also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards diet and conveyance and a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and has also granted interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and that the court below ought to have assessed the disability at the higher rate of percentage and ought to have adopted the disability as certified by PW-3. It is seen that the claimant has entered the witness box and has deposed and in the course of his deposition he clearly stated that he is an agriculturist and doing agricultural work. There is no evidence or material that is forthcoming to demonstrate as to how the fracture in any way has reduced his functional capacity. In the absence of such evidence and corroborating material this court does not find any error in the court assessing the disability at 10%. The tribunal in all probability after assessing the witnesses and after observing his conduct and the manner in which he carried himself has thought it fit to assess the disability at 10%. Even as per the PW3 the doctor has certified the disability at 21%. Apart from stating the disability to the whole body, there is no material nor has PW3 spoken about the functional disability suffered by the appellant. In that view of the matter this court does not find any error with the finding of the tribunal assessing the disability at 10% to the whole body. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notional income adopted is on the lower side in respect of the claim of the year 2015. Even in the Lok-adalath the notional income is adopted at Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/-.
7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent would support the conclusions reached by the tribunal and would submit that conclusions are supported by the cogent reasoning and corroborated by the material on record.
8. In the above background, the short point that arises for consideration is; whether the sum awarded as compensation is just and reasonable compensation?
9. The contention of the appellant that the notional income adopted by the tribunal is on the lower side merits consideration but the other findings do not warrant interference does not merit consideration. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the appeal could be disposed off by awarding a global compensation of Rs.30,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal. In that view of the matter, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled for an additional global compensation of Rs.30,000/-. In all, appellant shall be entitled to for a total compensation of Rs.2,87,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at the rate awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.
Office to draw a decree accordingly.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE