Karnataka High Court
Mohammaad Aris @ Mohammad Anees vs Karnataka Government Insurance on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A.NO.5878 OF 2015 (MV-INJ)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAAD ARIS @ MOHAMMAD ANEES
@ MOHAMMAD ARIF,
S/O B.D. ABUBAKKAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NATIVE OF NO.2, 109 (1),
MANIYA HOUSE, NARIMOGARU VG & POST,
PUTTUR TQ-DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.55,
3RD CROSS, OPP ATHIQ MASJID,
SOMESHWARANAGAR, AREKEMPANAHALLI,
JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK,
BANGALORE CITY-560091
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE
DEPARTMENT, (KGID),
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPT BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BWSSB
CMC-1, DIVISION BWSSB,
2
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3888/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL 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 captioned appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
respondent/Insurance Company has satisfied the award
determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal is
purely confined to quantum.
3. The appellant filed claim petition by specifically
contending that he met with an accident on 08.07.2014 and in
the said accident, he suffered fracture of both bones of right
leg and he was subjected to surgery and underwent treatment
as inpatient for a total period of 48 days at Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital. The appellant contended that on account of
fractures, he has suffered 13% disability to the whole body.
To substantiate his claim, the appellant examined himself as
PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2. The appellant relied
on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-15. The
respondent has not chosen to lead any rebuttal evidence
either by way of ocular or documentary evidence.
4. The Tribunal having examined the oral and
documentary evidence by assessing the income of the
appellant at Rs.6,000/- and by taking disability at 13% has
awarded Rs.1,68,480/- towards future loss of earnings. The
Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings
and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.17,011/-
towards medical expenses, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of
income during laid up period, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
The Tribunal, in all, awarded a sum of Rs.2,93,491/-.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused
the records.
6. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, though this Court cannot find fault with the finding
of the Tribunal in assessing the income of the appellant
notionally, however, having regard to the date of accident, this
Court would find that the income assessed by the Tribunal is
marginally on the lower side. In absence of income proof and
having regard to the date of accident which is dated
08.07.2014, this Court by placing reliance on the chart issued
by the legal services authority, would assess the income
notionally at Rs.8,500/-. If 13% disability is taken and by
applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation payable under
the head 'loss of future earnings' works out to Rs.2,38,680/-
(8,500x13%x18x12). The medical evidence on record clearly
indicates that appellant has suffered fracture of both bones
and has also suffered crush injury. Therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'pain
and sufferings' to the tune of Rs.40,000/- appears to be on
the lower side. If appellant has suffered fracture of both
bones of right leg coupled with crush injury to the foot, I deem
it fit to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards 'pain and
sufferings'.
7. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the
appellant was inpatient for a total period of 48 days.
Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of
conveyance charges and attendant charges and other
incidental expenses appears to be very much on the lower
side. Having regard to the fact that accident has occurred in
Bengaluru and he was hospitalized in Bengaluru city, since he
was inpatient for a period of 48 days, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is
awarded towards conveyance and attendant charges. Having
regard to the gravity of injuries, this Court has assessed the
income of the appellant notionally at Rs.8,500/- and therefore,
would proceed to award compensation for a period of six
months towards laid up period and the same works out to
Rs.51,000/-. Further, I deem it fit to award, a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The compensation of
Rs.17,011/- awarded towards medical expenses and
Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses remains
undisturbed. Hence, the total compensation re-determined by
this Court is as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.17,011/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.51,000/-
4. Loss of future earning Rs.2,38,680/-
5. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
6. Conveyance and attendant charges Rs.25,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.4,41,691/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The total
compensation re-determined by this Court works out to
Rs.4,41,691/- as against Rs.2,93,491/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation
of Rs.1,48,200/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
