1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.4123 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VEEREGOWDA H. R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT HOSUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. BYREGOWDA M. L.
S/O LINGEGOWDA M. C.
R/AT NO.11, MEGALADODDI
URAGAHALLI, RAMANAGARA
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 159
2. CHANDRA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
R/AT NO.67, HOTTIGANA
HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572 159
3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
S.V.R. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR
2
NO.89, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 030 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.188/2016,
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.01.2018 passed in MVC No.188/2016 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara (for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2015, at 9.30 a.m., when the petitioner was going in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MYO-8986 from 3 Ramanagara to Channapatna and when he was near mini Vidhana Soudha, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/L-1439 being driven by respondent no.2 in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the petitioner's vehicle and thereby the motorcycle got damaged and the petitioner fell down and suffered injuries to his right leg, left hand and other parts of the body. Accordingly, he preferred MVC No.188/2016 before the Tribunal.
4. After service of notice, respondent no.1 who is the owner of the offending motorcycle and respondent no.2 who was rider of the vehicle at the time of the accident remained absent. Respondent no.3-Insurance Company with whom the offending motorcycle was duly insured entered appearance through an Advocate and denied the liability. The petitioner, to prove his case, got examined himself as PW.1 and a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The respondents have neither let in any evidence nor got marked any documents.
5. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,954/- as 4 compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The accident happened in the year 2015. The petitioner was aged 46 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal based on the evidence let in has assessed the whole body disability at 12%. No reason is assigned in the appeal as to why the finding of the Tribunal insofar as age and percentage of disability assessed in respect of the petitioner has to be changed. As no proof as to the income of the petitioner was produced, the Tribunal has considered his notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident being of the year 2015, we find the same to be on the lower side and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies. The same has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to 5 a sum of Rs.1,68,480/- towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability as against Rs.1,12,320/- awarded by the Tribunal [9,000/- x 12 x 13 multiplier x 12%]. No amount has been awarded towards future medical expenses and we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the said count. A sum of Rs.82,634/- is awarded towards expenses incurred on treatment, hospitalization, medicines and miscellaneous expenses and we deem it appropriate to hold the same as correct. Towards nourishment and attendant charges, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded and we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.10,000/-. A sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment i.e. laid up period. Given his income at Rs.9,000/- per month, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.27,000/-. Towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. We deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.35,000/-. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. We deem it appropriate to 6 enhance the same to Rs.30,000/-. Thus, in all, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,63,114/- as against Rs.2,51,954/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER i] Appeal is allowed in part. ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,63,114/- as against Rs.2,51,954/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-
assessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days 7 from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
Learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep is permitted to file power within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.