IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MFA No.7480/2015 C/W MFA No.7861/2015 (MV) IN M.F.A. NO.7480 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIDHAR K.P S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONDAPURA VILLAGE, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. THAMMEGOWDA S/O THAMMAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.80, BABASHABARAPALYA, KENGERI CHECK POST, BANGALORE-560060.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, (LEGAL MANAGER) NO.144, SUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001.
REP: BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.7.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.93/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO. 7861 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, 1ST FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-1.
(BY SMT. MANJULA N.TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. SRIDHAR.K.P S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KONDAPURA VILLAGE, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT 2. THAMMEGOWDA S/O THAMMAIAH, NO.80, BABASHARABARAPALYA, KENGERI CHECK POST, BENGALURU-560060. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.7.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.93/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Both claimant and Insurance Company are before this Court in these two appeals aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.07.2015 in MVC No.93/2013.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 30.03.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when the claimant was going in a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-K-434, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-41-N-545 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that he took treatment in hospital and spent huge amount for his treatment. He was aged 40 years and was working as a Civil Contractor and earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
3. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its objections denying the petition averments and also contended that the accident had not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He admitted the policy and its validity as on the date of accident.
4. The claimant himself examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-Doctor in support of his case apart from marking documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P39. Respondents have not lead any oral or documentary evidence.
5. The Tribunal on analyzing the material on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the following heads:-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 40,000 2. Loss of amenities & Happiness 3. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 4. Medical and incidental charges 30,000 90,000 1,75,000 5. Permanent disability 1,85,000 6. Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 5,40,000/-
The insurer being aggrieved against awarding compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- towards ‘permanent disability’ and contending that no interest would be awarded on the head of ‘future medical expenses’ is before this Court in this appeal, praying for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the certified copy of the deposition made available.
7. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- on the head of ‘permanent disability’ as the claimant has not proved the loss of income due to disability. There is no evidence to show that the claimant suffered from functional disability. It is stated that the claimant is a Contractor, who has stated in his evidence that he has not surrendered the contract license and he has also not produced IT returns for the subsequent years to establish that his income is reduced subsequent to the accidental injuries. Further, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded interest on the compensation awarded on the head of ‘future medical expenses’. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal MFA No.7861/2015.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation on ‘future loss of income’ taking into consideration the disability suffered by the appellant at 17% and the income at Rs.30,000/- per month. It is his submission that the Tribunal having noticed that the claimant has suffered 17% whole body disability and having arrived at Rs.30,000/- per month as income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the head of ‘future loss of income’. It is his further submission that the compensation awarded on various heads are also on lower side.
9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- on the head of ‘permanent disability’. The Tribunal while awarding said sum has noted that as per the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, the claimant has suffered 17% whole body disability. The claimant has suffered open 2- level fracture-right tibia (segment), heel pad avulsion-right heel with large lacerated wound and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Doctor in his evidence, looking into the medical records was of the opinion that the claimant has suffered 17% whole body disability. PW.2 is admittedly not a treated Doctor. In his evidence, he has stated that the claimant has suffered 50% disability to particular limb and 17% to whole body. Admittedly, the claimant was working as a Contractor. Ex.P.35 is Tax Registration Certificate. The work of a Contractor would be executive work moving from one place to another place. Even though the Doctor has stated that the fracture is healed and bones have joined, it would cause some inconvenience while moving around. Therefore, even though the Tribunal observed that there is no loss of earning due to permanent disability, awarded a global compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- towards ‘permanent disability’ instead of granting compensation on the head of ‘future loss of income’. Thus, I find no error or perversity in awarding global compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- on the head of ‘permanent disability’.
10. The claimant states that the Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of ‘future loss of income’ taking into consideration 17% whole body disability and the income determined at Rs.30,000/- per month. As noted by the Tribunal, the claimant has not produced any document to show that he has sustained loss of income due to the accidental injuries and disability. When the claimant has failed to prove the loss suffered due to the disability by producing subsequent years income tax returns, the Tribunal rightly not awarded any compensation on the head of ‘future loss of income’ instead awarded a global compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- on the head of ‘permanent disability’ considering the injury suffered by the claimant.
11. The insurer contended that the compensation awarded on the head of ‘future medical expenses’ would not carry interest. The amount granted for future expenses to be incurred by the claimant for future treatment. Thus, it would not attract interest.
12. For the reasons stated above, appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.7480/2015 is dismissed. Appeal filed by insurer in MFA No.7861/2015 is partly allowed holding that the claimant would not be entitled for interest on a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded on the head of ‘future medical expenses’.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to above extent. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR