IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A.NO.6316 OF 2016 (MV I) BETWEEN SRI.SRIKANTA MURTHY S/O.PRAKASHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS RESIDING AT:
BELACHALAVADI VILLAGE & POST BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 571109 (BY SRI H V BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. DEVARAJA.N S/O GOVINDA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT DUGGALDKA VILLAGE AND POST DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 574239 2. MEENAKSHI D/O RAMACHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ... APPELLANT PENAMBOOR MANGALORE - 575010 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD NO 2951, 2ND FLOOR, JLB ROAD, NEAR CHAMUNDIPURAM CIRCLE CHAMUNDIPURAM MYSORE 570004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S T RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI M K VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.5.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.346/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The victim/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and for modification of the judgment and award dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Chamarajanagar, in M.V.C.No.346/2014.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 17.04.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. when the appellant was standing by the side of the road along with his Chevrolet car bearing registration No.KA-27-M-3316, near Jodupala-Madenadu village on Madikeri-Mangalore main road in order to answer nature call, at that time a Swift car bearing Registration No.KA-19-MC- 8678 came from opposite direction i.e., from Madikeri in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant and as a result, the appellant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On filing the claim petition, the respondents No.2 and 3 have appeared and filed their statement of objections.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following Issues:
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 17.04.2014 at about 5 P.M., near Jodupala-Madenadu village in Madikeri-Mangalore main road, when he was standing near the right side of the Car door reg.No.KA-27-M-3316?
(2) Whether the petitioner further proves that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of the Swift Car bearing registration No.KA-19-MC-8678 who dashed against the petitioner as a result of the same the petitioner sustained grievous injuries?
(3) Whether the respondent No.2 and 3 prove that they are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?
(4) Whether Petitioner is entitle for compensation, if so, at what extent and from whom?
(5) What award or order?
5. The appellant/petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, ten (10) documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10 and three documents were marked through Court Commissioner as Exs.C-1 to C-3. The respondents have not led evidence and no documents were produced.
6. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,63,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said award, the victim/appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. Perused the impugned judgment and lower Court records.
8. The grounds for enhancement are that the appellant has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he has taken treatment as inpatient in Primary Health Center, Sampaje, Kodagu and thereafter he was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysore. He has taken treatment for more than 30 days as an inpatient. The Doctors have stated that petitioner has got disability of 25%. Hence, the compensation for a sum of Rs.48,600/- towards medical expenses, Rs.9,000/- towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges are unreasonable and on the lower side. The amount awarded towards conveyance is also not proper and justified. The amount awarded towards loss of income is incorrect and disproportionate. Monthly income should have been taken at Rs.15,000/- considering the disability sustained by the victim/appellant, but the trial Court has failed to consider these aspects.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim of the appellant and submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
10. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the appellant has submitted regarding the medical treatment taken by the appellant for 30 days, disability as per Doctor’s evidence and the loss of income and there are valid grounds for modification of the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim/appellant, age and notional income calculated by the Tribunal, it is evident that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Thus, it is necessary to enhance the compensation amount based on the medical records and the expenditure said to have been incurred by the victim/claimant.
12. Considering the submission of both the counsel, it would be justified if a global compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- is awarded in addition to the amount that has already been awarded by the Tribunal.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The victim/appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,37,000/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Principal District Judge & Sessions Judge and Member, MACT, Chamarajanagar in M.V.C. No.346/2014 stands modified to that extent. Out of the enhanced amount, 50% shall be paid to the victim/appellant in cash and remaining 50% shall be deposited in the name of the victim/appellant in any nationalized bank for a period of five years without encumbrance.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DL