IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5716 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
T.U. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O T. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/A OLD CHAPPARADAHALLI, 14TH WARD, SANDUR POST AND TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT. C/O JANESHWARA, ARAKERE, TUMKUR TALUK-572122. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HOSPET DIVISION, HOSPET. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.15/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, TUMKUR, 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, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 30/06/2014 in M.V.C.No.15/2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumkur.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 24-6-2011, when the claimant was traveling in KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 35-F-89 near C.B.Forest on N.H.4, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit a lorry which was proceeding in front of it. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tumkur and later he took treatment at Ananya Hospital. It is further stated that the claimant was working at mining office and also doing milk vending business, by which he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He was aged 17 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. Further contended that the driver of the KSRTC Bus was driving the same slowly and cautiously, the accident took place due to the negligence of the claimant.
4. The claimant’s father was examined as PW-1 and 10 documents Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked. Respondent examined one Ramanna as RW-1, no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal, appreciating the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.70,100/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Conveyance 5,800 2. Pain and agony 20,000 3. Attendant charges and 5,000
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 the respondent. Perused the material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the claimant was aged 17 years as on the date of accident. He was working at mining office and also doing milk vending business, by which he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. It is his further submission that the compensation awarded on the other heads are on the lower side when compared to the accidental injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient for 12 days. Thus, prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. He further submits that the claimant failed to examine the Doctor who treated him to substantiate the injuries suffered by him. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation. Answer to the said point is in partly affirmative for the following reasons.
10. The accident, which occurred on 24-6-2011 involving KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-35-F-89 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The claimant was aged 17 years as on the date of accident. The claimant states that he was working at mining office and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month but in support of his contention, he has not produced any material/document on record to indicate the same. But PW-1-father of the claimant states that the claimant was studying in II PUC.
11. Taking note of the fact that the claimant was studying in II PUC, I am of the view that the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.4,000/- on the head of ‘Loss of income’. Looking to the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient for 12 days, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded on various heads are partly on the lower side. With regard to the injuries suffered and treatment taken, the claimant would be entitled for enhanced global compensation of Rs.30,000/- in addition to Rs.70,100/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ