IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2178/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVASWAMY N SON OF NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MELLALLI VILLAGE K M DODDI HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.K.P. BHUVAN, ADV.) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. HEAD OFFICE K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-27.
(BY SRI. PALAKSHAIAH, ADV.) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.567/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22.01.2014 passed in MVC No.567/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 14.08.2012, when the claimant and his friend were traveling in Bajaj Ape Auto bearing registration No.KA-42/637, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11/F-72 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the auto, in which, they were traveling. Due to which, the said auto dashed against another auto bearing registration No. KA-05/9031 and both autos turned turtle. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Channapatna. It is stated that the claimant was doing coolie work, earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. He was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent/Corporation appeared and filed its objections denying the claim petition averments and stated that the accident took place solely due to the negligent driving of the Bajaj Ape auto by its driver.
4. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondent/ Corporation examined R.W.1 and marked the document as Ex.R1.
5. The tribunal, on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.65,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads:
1. Lay off compensation :: Rs. 900/-
2. Attendant charges :: Rs. 600/-
3. Loss of income :: Rs.24,300/-
4. Pain and sufferings :: Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of amenities :: Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.65,800/-
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- p.m., and assessed the whole body disability at 3%. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and learned counsel for the Respondent/ Corporation. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- p.m., is on the lower side and he submits that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. by doing coolie work. It is his further submission that the Tribunal assessed the whole body disability at 3% against the evidence of P.W.2-doctor who had opined that the claimant suffers from 9% disability. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is on the lower side when compared to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient for 6 days. Thus, prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ Corporation would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 13.08.2012 involving Bajaj Ape Auto bearing registration No.KA-42/637 and KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11/F-72 and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The accident is of the year 2012. The assessment of income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- p.m., is on the lower side. The claimant states that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., by doing coolie work. In the year 2012, looking to the standard of living and price index, a coolie would have earned a sum of Rs.200/- per day which would work out to Rs.6,000/- p.m. In the instant case also, looking to the nature of work, the notional income could be taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m.
11. Doctor/P.W.2 has stated that the claimant suffers from 9% disability to left shoulder and he was inpatient for 6 days from 17.08.2012 to 22.08.2012. Looking to the injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that the claimant would have been out of employment for a minimum period of two months. Thus he would be entitled for compensation towards loss of income during the laid up period for a period of two months. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges at Rs.600/- is on the lower side looking to the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient for 6 days. Hence, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the head of attendant charges, food and nourishment. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:
1. Loss of income during the laid up period (6000x2) :: Rs.12,000/-
2. Attendant charges, conveyance Charges, food and nourishment :: Rs. 5,000/-
3. Loss of income due to disability 6000x12x15x3/100 :: Rs.32,400/-
4. Pain and sufferings :: Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of amenities :: Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.89,400/-
Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.89,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.65,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 22.01.2014 passed in MVC No.567/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapatna is modified to above extent. Thereby the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.23,600/-.
Sri. Palakshaiah, learned counsel for the respondent/ insurer is permitted to file vakalath within three weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms