IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.121 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
VENKATESH R S/O M RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 5TH CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD, HOSAHALLI VIJAYA NAGARA BENGALURU-560 040.
SINCE PETITIONER IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN M RAJANNA 59 YEARS S/O LATE MARAPPA. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.GIRISH, ADV.) AND:
1. MR. GANGADHAR K L MAJOR S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA NO.254, 7TH MAIN R P C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040.
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2 (VK NOT FILED) R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DATED 03/12/2018) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1163/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, assailing the judgment and award dated 03.09.2014 passed in MVC No.1163/2012 on the file of the XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore, is before this Court in this appeal.
2. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1908, claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.09.2011 when he was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-02-B-592. It is stated that the Car bearing No.KA-01-ME-1089 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw due to which the claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that the claimant has spent Rs.75,000/- towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment and attendant charges. It is further stated that the claimant was aged 17 years as on the date of accident and he was earning Rs.4,500/- as office boy.
3. On issuance of notice, the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection stating that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, but it was due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver. It is also stated that there is delay in filing FIR in respect of the accident. Before the Tribunal, father of the claimant was examined as PW.1, Doctor was examined as PW.2 and Medical Record Officer was examined as PW.3. The claimant marked the documents Exs.P1 to 41 in support of his case. The Tribunal on assessing the evidence and material on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,75,400/-. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads is on the lower side. Further he submits that the claimant was working as office boy and earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- as on the date of accident. Hence the Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income of claimant at Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/-.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
7. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusal of the appeal papers, I am of the view, that the award of the Tribunal needs modification for the following reasons. The claimant states that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and the Tribunal erred in taking Rs.4,000/- as his monthly income. The accident is of the year 2011. If the notional income is to be taken, it would be more than Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, I am of the view, that the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- for determining the compensation to the claimant. If Rs.4,500/- is taken as monthly income of the claimant and taking into consideration 10% disability as taken by the Tribunal, the ‘Loss of future income’ would be as follows :- Rs.4,500 x 10% x 12 x 18 = Rs.97,200/- (Rs.97,200/-
less Rs.86,400/- = Rs.10,800/-). The claimant has suffered fracture of both bones of right forearm and treated with ORIF surgery for the fracture bone. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant has suffered fracture and that he was inpatient for six days, I am of the view, that the compensation awarded on ‘Pain and suffering’ is on the lower side. Accordingly, another Rs.20,000/- is awarded on the head ‘Pain and suffering’, in addition to Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for ‘Medical expenses including incidental, conveyance, attendant charges, and nourished food’. The claimant states that he was inpatient for six days and in support of which he had produced medical bills amounting to Rs.39,675/-. When medical bills are taken into account, awarding of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses including incidental, conveyance, attendant charges and nourished food would be on the lower side. Hence an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on that head. Looking into the injuries suffered by the claimant, he would have been out of employment for three months. Hence he would be entitled for ‘Loss of income for laid up period’ at Rs.4,500/- x 3 = Rs.13,500/-. On the head ‘Future medical expenses’ a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, which would be on the lower side, hence another sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded on said head. The tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘Loss of amenities of life’, looking into the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, I am of the view, that the same is on the lower side and another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘Loss of amenities of life’. Thus in all the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.70,300/-. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the said extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms