1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.235/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
C/O THIMMEGOWDA
11TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA
HASSAN.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN
S/O SRI RANGNAIDU
NO.45, ARIYAM PALYA
SATHYAMANGALAM
TAMILNADU-638402
OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY
BEARING NO.TN-21 F 7374
2. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPLP, RALCO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN-302022.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2020
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.724/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-1, HASSAN, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.724/2011 dated 24.09.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT-1 at Hassan.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 09.12.2020 at 4.00 p.m. near Maarenahally Gate, Mysore Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ashok Layland lorry bearing Registration No.TN-21-F-7374. As a result, he has sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as inpatient and is unable to do the work which he was doing earlier.
3
3. The claimant to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2. He also relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P19.
4. The respondent-Insurance Company contested the matter and not adduced any evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.2,04,200/- with interest at 6% per annum.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal would vehemently contend that he was an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 16 days and the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 has deposed that the claimant has suffered 19% disability to left lower limb and Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability at 6%. The Tribunal has also committed an error in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month. 4
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was running a Rice Mill and was having agricultural property and as a result of the disability caused due to the accident, he is unable to do the agricultural work. The learned counsel would vehemently submit that in all the heads, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation and hence, it requires interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the accident is of the year 2010 and the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of 'Injury, pain, sufferings and shock'. The Tribunal has also considered the 'Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life' and awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-. He would further contend that the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the claimant and the accident is of the year 2010 has awarded just and reasonable compensation towards 'Loss of income during laid up period', 'Loss of future earning capacity' and has also considered the 'Conveyance and attendant charges' and hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
5
8. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is:
"Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court".
9. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the oral submissions of respective counsel, it is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The claimant has relied upon the document at Ex.P4 which is issued by the Government Hospital, Channarayapatna to show that he has sustained crush injury to right foot and right heel. The discharge summary issued by Vikaram Hospital which is marked as Ex.P10 shows that the claimant had undergone wound debridement on 10.12.2010, ALT free flap coverage for right heel defect on 14.12.2010 and SSG on 18.12.2010. The records also reveal that he has taken treatment in the Vikram Hospital between 09.12.2010 and 25.12.2010.
10. Having considered the nature of injuries, the treatment given to the claimant, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the head of 6 'Injury, pain, sufferings and shock'. Taking note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2010, it is appropriate to enhance the same and award a sum Rs.50,000/-.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards 'Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life' which is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference of this Court.
12. Regarding disability is concerned, the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 has issued the disability certificate showing deformity at 19%. However, the Tribunal has considered the disability at 6%. Having taken note of the nature of injuries, particularly to the left lower limb that too, a crush injury to right foot and right heel, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 8%, instead of 6%. The Tribunal has also committed an error in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month applying the right multiplier '15'. The accident is of the year 2010 and hence, the notional of the claimant would be Rs.5,500/- per month and having taken note of the documents at Exs.P6 to P9 which are RTC extracts, it is evident that he is an Agriculturist. Hence, an amount of 7 Rs.500/- is to be added to the notional income and if the same is added, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, a sum of Rs.86,400/- (6,000x12x15x8/100) is awarded towards 'Loss of future earning capacity'
13. The Tribunal while considering the medical bills at Exs.P15(1) to P15(33), in para No.14 of the judgment has observed that some of the receipts already find place in the discharge bills of the Vikram Hospital which comes to Rs.75,997/-. Hence, the Tribunal considering the same has awarded a sum of Rs.76,000/- which is just and reasonable.
14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards 'Laid up period' for a period of three months. However, taking into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and he was inpatient for a period of 16 days and was subjected to surgery, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income for a period of four months which comes to Rs.24,000/-.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards 'Conveyance and attendant charges'. It is not in dispute 8 that the claimant has taken treatment at Vikram Hospital from 09.12.2010 to 25.12.2010. When such being the case, the compensation awarded under the said head requires to be modified and the same is modified as Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/-.
16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'Future medical expenses'. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimant requires Rs.25,000/- for future medical expense as deposed by the Doctor-P.W.2. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head as the accident is of the year 2010 and hence, the same does not require any interference.
17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed in M.V.C.
No.724/2011 dated 24.09.2012 on the file of Principal District Judge and MACT-1, Hassan is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,86,400/-9
as against Rs.2,04,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount within four weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST