IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Miscellaneous first Appeal No. 7241 OF 2011 Between:
UMESH SON OF VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. PUSHPA, WIFE OF LATE UMESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEMAID.
2. U. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SON OF LATE UMESH, STUDENT.
3. KUM U. REVATHI AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE UMESH, STUDENT.
APPELLANTS NO. 2 & 3 SINCE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE 1ST APPELLANT PUSHPA, WIFE OF LATE UMESH, RESIDENT OF VIDYANAGARAA, 5TH CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, SHIMOGA – 577 201. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) And:
1. UDAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SON OF KESHAVAMURTHY, OCC: TRANSPORT, RESIDENT OF 3RD CROSS, ANNA NAGAR, SHIMOGA CITY – 577 701. (OWNER AND DRIVER OF TATA SUMO BEARING REG. NO. KA 14/A/ 2368) 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,B.H. ROAD, A.A CIRCLE, SHIMOGA CITY, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS [ (BY SRI. J. VENKATESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. M.V. POONACHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1801/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, MACT, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Umesh S/o. Venkatappa calling in question the judgment and award in MVC No.1801/2006 dated 25.2.2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Shivamogga and the Court of Fast Track-II and MACT, Shivamogga (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in MVC No.1801/2016 awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.
3. The appellants-claimants, who are wife and two children of the deceased Umesh, have filed claim petition in MVC No.1801/2006 asserting that the deceased Umesh was riding his bicycle on 30.4.2002 at late hour of the day when Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-14/A-2368 brought him down. The deceased Umesh suffered head injures and was unconscious. He was initially taken to Mc.Gann Hospital at Shivamogga and later shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal. The deceased Umesh had to undergo surgeries on two occasions during the year 2002. The deceased did not completely recover from the injuries suffered, and he died on 22.2.2009 because of the injuries suffered in the accident.
4. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1, and Dr. A.Raja as PW.3 and another Sri Hanumanthappa as PW.2. Dr. Raja has stated in his evidence that he treated the deceased Umesh in the year 2002 for the injuries suffered by the deceased in a road traffic accident. The deceased was operated for removal of blood clot. He was hospitalized for about three weeks between 1.5.2002 to 1.6.2002. The deceased underwent further surgery for replacement of bone flap between 3.11.2002 and 19.11.2002. The deceased visited for regular check up on 2.7.2002 and 3.11.2002 and thereafter only once in the month of January 2007.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, including the evidence of the Doctor – PW.3, has concluded that because of the long gap between the date of the accident and the date of demise, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the deceased died because of the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. However, the Tribunal has concluded that the claimants would be entitled, as legal representatives of the deceased, for some amount towards medical expenses incurred and loss of income during the laid up period. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.65,000/-, including a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards medical expenses based on the bills submitted by the claimants.
6. This Court, on perusal of the records, including the doctor’s evidence, and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, is of the considered view that no interference is called for insofar as the finding by the Tribunal that it cannot be reasonably concluded that the deceased died in the year 2009 because of the injuries suffered in the accident in the year 2002. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards medical expenses based on the medical bills, and other than this amount, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid- up period in the light of the evidence that the deceased was working as a mason at the time of accident.
7. It is undisputed that the deceased Umesh had to undergo two surgeries within a period of five months; the first surgery for removal of the blood clot in the month of May 2007 and the second surgery in the month of November 2007 for replacement of bone flap. These surgeries and post-surgery recuperation would undeniably suggest that the deceased Umesh incurred certain costs; it cannot merely be medical expenses. He would have incurred attendant charges, nourishment, travel and loss of income during laid up period which would also be over a period of more than six months. The Insurer has not challenged the award by the Tribunal, and in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a further global sum of Rs.50,000/- would be just and reasonable enhancement in the compensation. As such, the following:
ORDER (a) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 25.2.2011 in MVC No.1801/2006 on the file of the District and Sessions Court and Fast Track – II and MACT, Shivamogga is modified granting to the claimants a further global sum of Rs.50,000/-.
(b) The Insurer-respondent No.2 shall deposit such amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(c) The appellants – claimants shall be entitled to withdraw this amount.
Sd/- Judge SA Ct:sr