IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4919/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
SMT. SUJATHAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HOUSE HOLD AND AGRICULTURIST R/O KALLAHALLI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TQ. & DIST. 577501.
(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADV.) AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, BUS BHAVAN MUSHIRBAD, HYDERABAD ANDRAPRADESH-500001.
2. G. SRINIVASULU S/O K. GUPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO.AP-29-Z-22 VADARAPPALI VILLAGE H/O MUTTIREVULA PUTHALAPPATTU MANDAL CHITTOR TALUK AND DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH- 571001.
(BY SRI.D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 R2-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:20.01.2015) ...APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.454/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M. & MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 17.03.2014 passed in MVC No.454/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT-III, Chitradurga.
2. The claim petition was filed 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 19.04.2012 when the claimant was travelling from Thirupathi to Bangalore in APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-29-Z-22, the driver of the bus drove in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the road divider. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was treated initially at Chittor Government Hospital and thereafter at Bangalore. It is stated that the claimant was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work.
3. In response to the notice issued, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections denying the petition averments. The claimant examined herself as PW.3 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 apart from marking common documents Exs.P.1 to P.47 in MVC Nos.24, 454 and 458/2013. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record awarded global compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation). Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, when compared to the injuries suffered by the claimant. He submits that for the injuries suffered by the claimant, she took treatment as inpatient for 10 days. Hence prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent –Corporation submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that the claimant suffered lacerated open wound on left arm and other bodily injuries. But she has not suffered any fracture and she has also not placed any material to substantiate the same.
7. The accident occurred on 19.04.2012 involving APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-29-Z-22 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute. Admittedly, the claimant has suffered simple injury as per Ex.P.4 – the Wound Certificate. Learned counsel states that the claimant was inpatient for 10 days, but has not placed on record any medical records in support of her contention. The Tribunal records that the claimant has taken follow-up treatment for some period. Looking to the injuries suffered, treatment taken, the claimant would have spent some amount towards attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment. Hence, I am of the view, that the claimant would be entitled for another Rs.10,000/- in addition to Rs.10,000/- global compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- in addition to Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms