IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.856 OF 2018(MV-I) BETWEEN VENKATARAMU @ VENKATARAMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT: YADAVAHALLI CHEELURU, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.P.SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND …APPELLANT 1. THE INCHARGE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. SHANTHI TOWERS, NO. 141, 5TH FLOOR EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043.
2. S.T.THIMMAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH MAJOR IN AGE R/AT:- SONATENAHALLI KOLLIGANAHALLI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1465/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-51), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 03.10.2017 passed by the learned VII Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.1645/2016, awarding a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment towards the injuries sustained by the petitioner on account of the road traffic accident that occurred on 01.04.2014.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability incurred by the appellant to the entire body was 12% instead of 19% as assessed by the doctor-P.W.2 as well as the medical records and other material on record. It was further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.8,500/- p.m., as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2014. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. Lastly, it was contended that having regard to the grave and serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and that the same requires enhancement by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1- Insurance Company would support the impugned order.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached evidence of the doctor-P.W.2 coupled with the medical records and other material on record which would clearly establish that the appellant had incurred permanent disability to an extent of 15% to the entire body and not 12% as wrongly held by the Tribunal. So also, the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.8,500/- p.m., in view of the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2014. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 15 x 15/100 = 2,29,500/-.
8. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under the head loss of future earnings, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.99,500/- under this head.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant is also right in contending that consequent to taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/- p.m., the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,500/- being the loss of income for a period of three months during which period, the appellant underwent loss of income. A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities.
10. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- by way of enhanced compensation as hereunder:
The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,40,000/- shall be released in favour of the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv