IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.8060 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI THIPPESHNAIK S/O TOOGYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, MASALA MERCHANT & AGRICULTURIST, R/AT CHANNAIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577519.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B G VIJAY KUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR H M S/O NAGABHUSHAN MAJOR IN AGE R/O INDUSTRIAL AREA, SOG COLONY, ‘A’ BLOCK, DAVANGERE POST, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577002. (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI OMNI CAR BEARING NO.KA-35/M-1425) 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.272/13, 1ST FLOOR, MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX, PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD, DAVANGERE-577002.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.405/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, 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 The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 23/01/2014 in M.V.C.No.405/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 01-8-2012, when the claimant was proceeding as a rider, Maruthi Omni van bearing Reg.No.KA-35/M-1425 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga and thereafter to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere for higher treatment. It is stated that the claimant was doing masala business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agricultural activities.
3. On issuance of notice, both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections separately denying the claim petition averments. Respondent No.1 filed his written statement contending that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.2-insurer and the driver had valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2-insurer contended that the liability would be subject to validity of RC, FC, permit of the vehicle and driving license of the offending vehicle.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and the Doctor as PW-3, apart from marking common documents Exs.P-1 to P-65 in MVC.Nos.405/2013 & 406/2013 arising out of the same accident. Respondents marked document Ex.R-1-Policy copy.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 25,000 2. Towards traveling expenses, conveyance, attendants charges, diet, etc.
5,000 3. Towards medical expenses 20,000 Total 50,000 * Page Nos.4 to 8 are replaced Vide Court Order dated 16.03.2020.
The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the claimant was inpatient for 7 days due to the accident injuries sustained by him. He further submits that Ex.P6- wound certificate would indicate the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient. It is his further submission that looking to the injuries suffered and treatment taken, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that would arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for the enhanced compensation. Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons.
10. The accident occurred on 01-8-2012 involving motorcycle and Maruthi Omni van bearing Reg.No.KA- 35/M-1425 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in disputed in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has suffered the following accidental injuries:
1. Bleeding from right ear 2. Large abrasion over right forearm and hand 3. Lacerated wound on forearm 4. Abrasion over both knee joint 5. Pain and tenderness over left hip Ex.P6-wound certificate would indicate the injuries sustained by the claimant. But the claimant has not examined the Doctor in support of his case. Exs.P-31 to 34 are x-ray films, Ex.P-30 is the CT scan film. The claimant has not produced disability certificate to prove that due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability. Looking to the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant, the compensation awarded on the head of ‘travelling expenses, conveyance, attendants charges, diet etc.’ is on the lower side. The claimant would be entitled for another Rs.15,000/- on the said head. Further, the claimant suffered fracture of squamous part of right temporal bone as per case sheet and CT scan as recorded by the Tribunal. He has also suffered injury to right ear. Looking to the nature of injury and pain and suffering undergone, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the head of ‘Loss of amenities’ for which, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for another sum of Rs.30,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization as awarded by the Tribunal.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
By order dated 06-12-2017 the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal was condoned subject to the condition that the appellant would not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period. Accordingly, the appellant would not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 216 days.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ