IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.317/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH S/O LATE K.BASAVASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KOTAVALU VILLAGE RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARKALGUDU ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102. ..APPELLANT (BY SRI SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SALMAN KHAN S/O RASHID AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS H.R.P. COLONY GORURU, KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573120 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TRICHY, 19/1, 1ST FLOOR KALPANA COMPLEX, BIRDS ROAD, TIRUCHCHIRAPPALLI TAMIL NADU -620001. ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.209/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 09.10.2018 passed in MVC No.209/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Arkalgud, wherein the claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.2,19,100/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was granted.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner has preferred the present appeal claiming that compensation granted is insufficient. The matter pertains to road traffic accident that occurred on 15.05.2017 at 12 noon when petitioner in order to go to State Bank of India, Arakalgud, after crossing the public road in front of KSRTC bus stand was standing on the edge of the road in front of State Bank of India, the rider of TVS Star City motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-46/J/8386 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner because of which he sustained injuries to the two sides of head, right side of forehead, left leg, 2nd toe, neck, fracture of ACL and MCL bones of left knee. The doctor PW-2 has stated that claimant sustained 22% functional disability of his left knee.
4. The compensation is ordered as per the following break up:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. Pain and agony Rs. 30,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,16,000/-
3. Food, conveyance, and attendant charges 4. Loss of future income due to disability Rs. 3,500/-
Rs. 54,600-
5. Loss of income during laid down period Rs. 5,000/-
6. Loss of future amenities Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,19,100/-
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits petitioner is a practicing advocate and an agriculturist as well. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal erred in taking petitioner’s income at Rs.5,000/- while awarding compensation.
6. Learned Member has considered monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and total disability is considered at 7%. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find the compensation is under assessed and the amount granted is Rs.2,19,100/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is fair and just. There is no necessity to proceed ahead; appeal is liable to be rejected at the preliminary stage itself.
Accordingly appeal is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN