IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.10741/2010 (MV) BETWEEN VENKATARAJ URS S/O SREEKANTAPPA AGE 39 YEARS KSRP, 8TH BATALLION, NEAR KMF DIARY BHADRAVATHI TALUK. .. APPELLANT (By Sri R G HALESHA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. V R KESHAVAMURTHY, MAJOR S/O RAMAPPA DRIVER OF VAN NO.CAG 193, R/O KSRP, 8TH BATTALION, MACHENAHALLI, SHIMOGA TALUK.
2. THE COMMANDANT 8TH BATTALION, KSRP, SHIMOGA-577222 3. THE MANAGER KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT MOTOR BRANCH, BANGALORE PCY NO.65643 VALID FROM 18-11-2003 TO 17-11-2004. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri M MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R3, R1 & R2 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.11.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.168/2005 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI, 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 appellant is the claimant, Being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 27th November, 2009 passed in MVC No.168/2005 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (11), Bhadravathi (for short `Tribunal’), he has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 9.2.2004, while he was proceeding in KSRP van bearing Registration No.CAG 193 along with other travelers, near Machenahalli on Bhadravathi – Shimoga road, the said vehicle dashed against the TATA Sumo vehicle coming from Bhadravathi. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver, the claimant has sustained injuries to his leg and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga. After first aid, he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of six days. Thereafter he took treatment for a period of 16 days as an inpatient in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. He had spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. In view of the injuries sustained, he was unable to do the work, which he was doing earlier. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.6,35,000/-
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents No.2 and 3 entered appearance. The 3rd respondent filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also rash and negligent driving of the KSRP van. On the other hand, due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA Sumo vehicle, the said vehicle dashed against the police vehicle. There is contributory negligence on the part of TATA Sumo vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondents No.2 and 3.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
5. The claimant, in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, one B S Halappa was examined as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R9.
6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot mahazar, IMV report, copy of the complaint and chargesheet, held that due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of KSRP van, the accident occurred. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation.
7. The doctor, who treated the claimant, has not been examined to assess the disability. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained and sufferings undergone awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards `pain and suffering’, Rs.8,000/- towards `medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and etc,’, Rs.15,000/- towards `loss of amenities in life’ and Rs.15,000/- towards `loss of income during the laid up period’. In all, a sum of Rs.78,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation has preferred this appeal.
8. Sri R G Halesha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years and working as Reserve Constable in KSRP. In the accident, he has sustained three fractures and four injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 22 years. The Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on the ground that the claimant has not examined the doctor, who treated him. However, the wound certificate issued by Mc.Gann Hospital clearly discloses that the claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
9. On the other hand, Sri M Munigangappa, learned HCGP appearing for the 3rd respondent argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that in the absence of disability as assessed by the doctor, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.
11. The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation.
12. In the accident, the claimant has sustained the following injuries:
1. Leniar abrasion over left left.
2. Abrasion with swelling over upper arm.
3. Fracture of 5th and 8th ribs (left side).
4. Lacerated wound over dorsum of the forearm and skin deep.
5. Right ulnar palsy.
6. Fracture 2nd metatarsal bone (left side) 7. Fracture 2nd and 3rd metatarsal (right side).
13. The injury Nos.3, 6 and 7 are grievous in nature. Initially, the claimant took treatment in Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga and in Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. Thereafter he took treatment in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. He took treatment totally for 22 days as an inpatient in the said hospitals. Though the government has reimbursed the medical bills and he is continued in the said job, the compensation awarded under other heads is on the lower side. He had traveled from Bhandravathi to Shimoga. Thereafter, he was shifted from Shimoga to Davanagere and later Davanagere to Bangalore. He had spent huge money for the conveyance and other incidental charges. Further, the claimant has to lead his remaining life with that disability he has suffered through out his life. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards `attendant, nourishment, conveyance charges and loss of amenities in life’ in addition to Rs.78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 27th November, 2009 passed in MVC No.168/2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadravathi, is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.78,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.
Bkm.
Sd/- JUDGE