IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD MFA No. 1873/2016(MV) C/W MFA No.2051/2016(MV) IN MFA 1873/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. T. VENKATESAN S/O THIRUMALAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.6, 17TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.NAGARAJ K., ADV. ) AND 1. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.152, 1ST MAIN ROAD CHIKKADEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD T.P. HUB,REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, NO.18 KRUSHIBHAVAN 6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.T.GURUPRASAD, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 12.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3593/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, Court OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,22,300/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF RELIZATION.
IN MFA NO.2051/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.152, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADEVASANDRA K R PURAM, BANGALORE EAST-560036.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD.K.T., ADV.) AND:
1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P. HUB, NO.18, KRUSHIVHAVAN 6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER.
2. T VENKATESAN, MAJOR NO.6 17TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 076.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.R.LOKESH, ADV,. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 12.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3593/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA’S COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT MFA 1873/2016 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle and MFA 2051/2016 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.1.2016 passed by the MACT & V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in MVC 3593/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 5.8.2014 at about 8.30 a.m. when the claimant was proceeding in a bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-A-3079, by sitting on the left rear wheel seat of the said bus, to go to Marathahalli, when he reached near Dharga Mohalla Road, K.R.Puram, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the rear wheel got burst and as a result, the claimant sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to Vydehi Hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW- 1, one more witness as PW-2 and doctor as PW-3 and submitted 16 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has examined one witness as RW-
1 and produced 2 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,300/- with interest at 9% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner and claimant have filed these appeals respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner on the ground that there was no fitness certificate. He further submits that he has produced the fitness certificate along with a memo before this Court. The same has been verified by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 40 years. He was working as a mason and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken the monthly income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. As per wound certificate, the claimant has suffered crush injury to left foot and fracture of left ankle and dislocation. PW-3 has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to whole body to an extent of 14.75%. But the Tribunal is not justified in awarding meager compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards "loss of amenities", and Rs.20,000/- towards “conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges”. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant prays for allowing the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that even though the claimants claim that he was earning Rs.20,000/- no documents has been produced to establish the same. Further, he submits that even though the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3, he is not the treating doctor.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability to whole body at 10%. There is no grievous injuries sustained by the claimant. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 5.8.2014. As per wound certificate, the claimant has suffered crush injury to left foot and fracture of left ankle and dislocation. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 38 days. Therefore, compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards “conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges” is on the lower side. Hence it is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-
8. The claimant claims that he was doing mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the chart, for an accident of the year, 2014, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in assessing the claimant’s income as merely Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the claimant’s income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month.
9. Even though, the claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 38 days, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head “loss of income during laid up period”. The nature of injuries suggest that, he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Therefore, compensation of Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500 X 3 months) is granted towards “loss of income during laid up period”.
10. The claimant is aged about 40 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 14. His income is assessed at Rs.8,500/- per month. As per the evidence of PW-3, doctor, the Tribunal has rightly taken 10% disability to the whole body. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.1,42,800/- (8,500 x 12 x 14 x 10%) and it is awarded as against Rs.1,00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Considering the nature of injuries and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- under the category of "loss of amenities".
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 Loss of amenities 10,000 30,000 Medical expenses 61,500 61,500 Incidental expenses 20,000 40,000 Loss of future income 100,800 142,800 Loss of income during laid up period 0 25,500 Total 222,300 329,800 13. The learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has filed a memo along with the fitness certificate. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has verified the fitness certificate. Since there is valid fitness certificate, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is made clear that the owner of the offending vehicle is not liable to pay compensation.
14. Accordingly, MFA 1873/2016 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is allowed. MFA 2051/2016 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 12.1.2016 passed by the MACT & V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in MVC 3593/2014, stands modified.
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the appellant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.
16. Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by the owner of the offending vehicle before this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE DM