IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 6415 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN SMT. SUZANA SUNDARI W/O ANTHONIDAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.921 BDA QUARTERS NEELASANDRA VIVEKANAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 047 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI R. LAKSHMANA – ADV.) AND 1. MERMAN BHAI RAMA BHAI RABARI INDIA MARG NEAR AMRISH BUILDING JAM NAGAR, GUJARATH -8 2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD BY ITS MANAGER NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJU– ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DT. 19.07.2019.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2455/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for orders but with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.2455/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.
3 The injured-claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The factual matrix is that on 18.04.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., when the appellant was proceeding as an occupant along with her family members in a car bearing No.KA-01-MF-1681 from Bengaluru to Harobele town, Kanakapura Taluk on Bengaluru – Kanakapura road, when they reached near Paduvanagere cross, the lorry bearing registration No.GJ-10 TT-9889 driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner in greater speed, came from the back side and dashed against the car and caused the accident. The appellant-claimant who was an inmate of the car sustained grievous injuries and was treated in Apollo hospital as an inpatient and had incurred expenses. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. After service of notice, the owner of the offending lorry–Respondent No.1 and insurer- Respondent No.2 appeared through their counsels However, the Insurer – Respondent No.2 filed its written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the tribunal, the claimant has established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and its insurance coverage and the same has remained unchallenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer.
6. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending lorry and consequently awarded total compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant vehemently contended that it is evident from the Wound Certificate at Exhibit- P.25, medical certificates and X- rays, C.T scans that the appellant had suffered undisplaced fracture of nasal bone, fracture of 5th and 6th ribs on left side. As an in-patient she has taken treatment from 18.04.2014 to 22.04.2014. She has become permanently disabled because of the accidental injuries. She was aged about 58 years at the relevant time of accident. Thus, it is clear that she had suffered grievous injuries. The learned counsel contends that the Tribunal without appreciating the material placed on record and medical records which has been produced by the claimant to substantiate her case, has awarded very meagre compensation under all the heads.
8. On all these grounds, the learned counsel contends that the compensation may be suitably enhanced by this court, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. On careful evaluation of the material on record, and having regard to the fact that the claimant said to be the injured who has suffered fracture of nasal bone, fracture of 5th and 6th rib on left side and the injured had taken treatment in Apollo Hospital as a in patient for 5 days i.e., from 18.04.2014 to 22.04.201. As there is no specific evidence on the part of the claimant regarding disability factor as per Wound certificate-Ex.P.25, discharge summary Ex.P.26, Ex.P.28 X-ray and C.T. scan reports and she was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident, taking into consideration all these facts and in order to meet the ends of justice, I find that it would be just and proper to allow this appeal as well granting a global compensation suitably.
11. In view of the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 30.05.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2455/2014, the claimant is hereby granted a global compensation of Rs.30,000/- in addition to Rs.65,000/- granted by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., shall be retained. However, the said amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @ of 6% p.a.
The second respondent-insurer shall deposit the global compensation in addition to the compensation already awarded with accrued interest, before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, in terms of the award, on proper identification. The amounts already deposited shall be adjusted. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE HR