IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN MFA No.2539/2014 (MV) BETWEEN :
SUNIL VERGHESE S/O LATE I.C. VERGHESE, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O IRALIL HOUSE, VAGADEKAL, GUBBIGA POST, N.R.PURA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI S. V. PRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
1. FRANCIS ROONI D’SILVA S/O FASKAL D'SILVA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O B. H. KAIMARA, N.R. PURA POST, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
(DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA 20/A-4489) 2. M. MADIVANAN S/O LAKSHMANA NAIDU AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.5/3, ATTAVARA PALACE, B.V.ROAD, MANGALORE TALUK-575001.
(OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA 20/A-4489) 3. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM M. S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, 16-01-44, S.R.COMPLEX, BANDOORWELL MANGALORE-02 & REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. S. LINGARAJU, ADV. FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.107/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT Mr. Sunil Verghese, the injured-claimant, has challenged the legality of the award dated 06.02.2014, passed by the Senor Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Tarikere, whereby, for the injury suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 27.01.2010, when the appellant was traveling in a private bus, bearing registration No. KA-20/A-4489, and was going to Mangalore, around 3.00 a.m., near Navadurga Garage, Haleangady village, the driver of the bus drove the bus in such rash and negligent manner that the bus toppled. Consequently, the appellant suffered five injuries, including segmental fracture of shaft of right ulna at lower end, fracture of shaft of right radius at middle one-third. After recovering from the said injuries, he filed a claim petition along with others. By a common award, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation to the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. Mr. S. V. Prakash, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, despite the appellant having suffered two fractures, he has been granted merely Rs.40,000/- for ‘pain and suffering’. Therefore, the said compensation is on the lower side.
Secondly, despite the fact that the appellant was hospitalised for nine days, a mere compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for the category of ‘conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges’. Therefore, the compensation needs to be enhanced in this category.
Thirdly, for the ‘loss of amenities in life’ suffered by the appellant, a meager amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the compensation needs to be enhanced even in this category.
Lastly, the appellant had certain implants inserted into his fractured bones. The implants need to be taken out. Despite the fact that in future the appellant would be required to have removal of implants, the learned Tribunal has merely granted Rs.25,000/- for the future medical expenditure. Therefore, the compensation needs to be enhanced even in the said category. Thus, this Court should interfere with the impugned award.
4. On the other hand, Mr. H. S. Lingarju, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has submitted the following counter-arguments:-
Firstly, an award is not meant to be a bonanza. Considering the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2010, and the award was passed in the year 2014, the compensation granted to the appellant was most reasonable and fair. The compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant is a reasonable amount.
Secondly, even the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for nine days of hospitalization undergone by the appellant is a reasonable amount.
Thirdly, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the ‘loss of amenities’ is a fair amount. For, the appellant had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that due to the accident, he has not suffered in his professional life.
Lastly, since Dr. Ullas Shetty (C.W.1) had clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellant would require Rs.25,000/- for future medical needs, the said amount has been granted by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in granting the said amount, as it is based on the oral testimony of the witness examined by the Court itself. Hence, the impugned award does not deserves to be modified by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award.
6. Needless to say, a compensation awarded is not meant to be a bonanza, but simultaneously it should be a reasonable compensation in order to mitigate the suffering and consequences of accident. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 27.01.2010, and the award was passed on 06.02.2014. At the relevant time, Rs.40,000/- had some financial value. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has granted a reasonable compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant. Since a reasonable amount has been paid, the same cannot be enhanced by this Court.
7. Admittedly, the appellant was hospitalised from 28.01.2010 to 06.02.2010 i.e., for a period of nine days. An amount of Rs.10,000/- has been granted for ‘food, conveyance and attendant charges’. Even the said amount in the year 2014 is a reasonable one. Therefore, grant of compensation under the said category cannot be faulted by this Court.
8. Undoubtedly, the appellant in his cross-examination has admitted that due to the accident, he did not suffer professionally, as he did not suffer any revision in his income. Therefore, grant of Rs.25,000/- seems to be just and reasonable amount.
9. Lastly, according to Dr. Ullas Shetty (C.W.1), the appellant would require about Rs.25,000/- for his future medical needs. On the basis of his testimony, the leaned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. Therefore, the compensation is based on the oral testimony of Dr. Ullas Shetty (C.W.1). Hence, grant of compensation even under the said category cannot be faulted by this Court.
10. According to the disability certificate (Ex.P11), the appellant has suffered disability of 13% in the right upper limb. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that he has suffered disability of 4.3% to the whole body. Hence, the appellant has failed to prove that in his personal life, he would suffer loss of amenities. Thus, grant of Rs.25,000/- for the category of ‘loss of amenities’ is just and reasonable compensation.
11. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-