IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL M.F.A. No.5805/2012 (MV) c/w M.F.A. No.5804/2012 (MV) IN M.F.A. No.5805/2012 (MV):
BETWEEN :
Sri Sooran S/o Govindaswamy Aged about 30 years Residing at beside Begurkere, Jopadi, Subashnagar, Doddabeguru, Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri K. Vishwanatha, Advocate) AND :
1. Kannan C., No.24, Ramaiah layout, S.C. Palya, D.R. College Post, Bangalore-560 029.
… Appellant 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office at No.89, 2nd Floor, S.V.R. Complex, Hosur Main Road, Madiwala, Bangalore-560 068.
… Respondents (By Sri K.S. Ramesh, Advocate for R1; Sri B. Pradeep, Advocate for R2) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 passed in MVC No.1282/2009 on the file of XI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A. No.5804/2012 (MV):
BETWEEN :
Smt. Peruma Aged about 28 years Residing at beside Begur Kere, Jopadi, Subashnagar, Doddabeguru, Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri K. Vishwanatha, Advocate) AND :
1. Kannan C., No.24, Ramaiah layout, S.C. Palya, D.R. College Post, Bangalore-560 029.
… Appellant 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office at No.89, 2nd Floor, S.V.R. Complex, Hosur Main Road, Madiwala, Bangalore-560 068.
… Respondents (By Sri K.S. Ramesh, Advocate for R1;
Sri B. Pradeep, Advocate for R2) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 passed in MVC No.1281/2009 on the file of XI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
These MFAs coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T These two appeals are preferred assailing the common judgment and award dated 19.8.2011, passed by the MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH.12), in MVC.Nos.1281/2009 and 1282/2009.
2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of both parties, they are heard finally.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.6.2007 at about 3.00 p.m, when the claimants-appellants herein were proceeding as pedestrians on Hosur Main Road at Singasandra Bus Stop and were crossing the said road, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-01-EE- 7844 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them, as a result of which, both of them sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, they were shifted to a nearby Nursing Home, wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter they were taken to St.John’s Medical Hospital, wherein they were treated as inpatients. They filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal contending that due to accidental injuries, they incurred huge medical expenses towards their treatment. They were working as stone cutters and because of the accidental injuries they cannot work effectively as they were working prior to the accident in question and sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle has filed his objections denying the contents of the claim petitions contending that vehicle was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and as such the Insurance Company is liable to be pay the compensation.
5. The Insurance Company has also filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petitions contending that the rider of the motorcycle was not having any valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It has admitted that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. On these grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings and on considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.65,921/- in respect of the claimant in MVC.No.1281/2009 (appellant in MFA.5804/2012) and Rs.27,900/- to the claimant in MVC.No.1282/2009 (appellant in MFA.5805/2012). By assailing the said judgment and award, the claimants are before this Court by filing these appeals seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the claimants have sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question. There is loss of earning during laid up period as they have been hospitalized for a longer period and have spent huge money. The Tribunal without considering the injuries and the medical expenses incurred by them, has awarded the compensation which is on the lower side.
On these grounds, it is prayed for allowing the appeals by enhancing the compensation.
8. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has supported the impugned award contending that as on the date of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle was not having any valid and effective driving license and as such the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the first respondent- owner of the vehicle and hence he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
9. As could be seen from the records, the claimant in MVC.No.1281/2009 has sustained the injures of tenderness over the lower back, pelvic, tenderness; L4 compression fracture with sacral body fracture; right superior and inferior pubic rami fracture; lacerated wound over the left wrist, measuring 3x1 cm bone deep and comminuted fracture distal end of radius and the claimant in MVC.1282/2009 has sustained the injuries of right hand swollen; comminuted fracture proximal phalanx ring finger and fracture shaft proximal phalanx little finger which are said to be grievous in nature. After considering the injuries sustained by both the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded the total compensation as aforementioned. Though the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that the claimants have sustained the aforesaid injuries which are grievous in nature and they cannot work effectively in future as they were working in Stone Cutting Company, in order to substantiate the said fact, they have not examined the doctor and no disability certificate has been produced to show what is the disability which has been suffered by the claimants.
10. As could be seen from the records, the Tribunal has also observed that as the doctor has not been examined and no disability certificate is produced by the claimants, no amount has been awarded towards disability. But however, taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the appellants-claimants, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads appears to be on lower side. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the injuries sustained by the claimants-appellants herein, I pass the following:-
In MVC.No.1282/2009 the claimant-appellant is awarded the compensation as under:-
Pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period : Rs.12,000/-
Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/-
Conveyance, nourishment & other incidental charges : Rs.10,000/-
The medical expenses of Rs.1,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is left undisturbed. After deducting the amount of Rs.27,900/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.25,500/- with interest at 6% per annum.
11. In so far as MVC.No.1281/2009 is concerned, the claimant-appellant is awarded the compensation as under:-
Pain and suffering : Rs.30,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period : Rs.12,000/-
Loss of amenities : Rs.20,000/-
Conveyance, nourishment & other incidental charges : Rs.10,000/-
12. In so far as the medical expenses of Rs.22,421/- awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is undisturbed. After deducting the amount of Rs.65,921/ already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.28,500/- with interest at 6% per annum.
Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent as indicated above.
The respondent No.1-owner to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Tribunal.
Registry to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-