IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.71/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
MANJAPPA, S/O N.R.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O ALADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIMOGA TALUK – 577 201.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. VEJENDRA SHENOY, MAJOR, OWNER OF VIJAYA BUS, (VIJAYA MOTOR SERVICE), NO.KA-14/7032, O.T.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577 201.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, DRIVER OF VIJAYA MOTOR SERVICE, BUS NO.KA-14/7032, VIJAYA GUARAGE, O.T.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577 201.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VINAYAKA COMPLEX, 1ST CROSS, GARDEN AREA, SHIMOGA – 577 201.
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MALLAPPA COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577 201.
5. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O NOT KNOWN, OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-14/7032, O.T.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1, R2 AND R5 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.869/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – II, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 31.10.2011 in M.V.C.No.869/2011 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 13.12.2001.
2. The claimant states that on 13.12.2001 the claimant and others loaded maize to the Tractor Trailor bearing No.KA-14/227-228 and when the Tractor Trailor was driven slowly, at that time, bus bearing No.KA-14/7032 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from the back side and hit the Tractor Trailor. Due to the impact, the Tractor Trailor turned turtle on the road and the claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that the claimant took treatment at KMC Hospital, Manipal, where he was treated as inpatient for 20 days. The claimant was aged about 38 years as on the date of the accident. He states that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month.
3. The 4th respondent – Insurance Company on service of notice appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections denying the claim averments. It is stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor Trailor. The claimant himself examined as PW-
1 and got marked 80 documents. The 3rd respondent examined its Officer as RW-1 and insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/- to the claimant. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 4th respondent – Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal on the various heads is on the lower side and he submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant, as the accident is of the year 2001. It is stated that the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 4th respondent– Insurance Company submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference.
7. The accident is of the year 2001. The Tribunal in the absence of any proof of income has taken Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the claimant, which is proper. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It is only his self serving statement, no proof of income is produced by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the claimant for determining the compensation. Further looking into the injuries and treatment taken by the claimant being inpatient for 20 days, the compensation granted by the Tribunal on the various heads is on the lower side. The claimant would be entitled for modified compensation as follows:-
SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (Rs.) 1. Towards Pain and sufferings 40,000 2. Towards Medical expenses including attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges 3. Towards loss of income during treatment period 25,000 9,000 4. Towards loss of amenities 15,000 Total 89,000 Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.89,000/- as against Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the 4th respondent. The same is retained.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB