Karnataka High Court
Mujeeb Pasha vs Mohammed Rafi on 6 December, 2021
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
M.F.A. NO.4335 OF 2015 (MV -I)
BETWEEN:
MUJEEB PASHA,
S/O. ABDUL SATHER,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. KODLIPETE,
SOMWARAPETE TALUK.
PRESENT ADDRESS:-
MUJEEB PASHA,
S/O. ABDUL SATHER,
BALUPETE,
SAKALESHPUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED RAFI,
S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. NEW MUNICIPALITY,
KODLIPETE,
SOMWARAPETE TALUK,
MADIKERI DISTRICT.
2. BRANCH MANAGER,
UNIVERSAL SOMPO,
GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
K.V.D.KOVERS, 7, 3, 2ND FLOOR,
BLACKWELLS FINANCE,
100 FEET ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR
2
(OLD MADRAS ROAD),
BANGALORE - 560 032. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
----
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.93/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
MACT, SAKALESHPUR, 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
This appeal lays challenge to the judgment passed by
Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Sakaleshpur, in MVC
No.93/2011 dated 10.04.2012, wherein the tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner
in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief case of the petitioner is that when the
petitioner was proceeding in front of Anwar work shop at
Kodlipet, on 17.11.2010 at about 10:00 a.m., the driver of
the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12-8468 drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
and dashed to the petitioner from his back side. As a result,
he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately after the
accident, he was shifted to S.C.Hospital, Hassan. After first
aid, he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan and after
x-ray examination, it was found that, there is a fracture of
right femur, accordingly, he has undergone surgery and he
took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days and
spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses.
Hence, he filed the petition claiming compensation.
3. Respondent No.1 did not appear and respondent
No.2 appeared and filed written statement and contended
that the policy was in force but the liability is subject to terms
and conditions of the policy.
4. Before the tribunal, the petitioner got examined
himself as PW.1, got marked twenty three documents as
Exs.P1 to P23 which consists of FIR, complaint, wound
certificate, IMV report, spot mahazar, 12 medical bills,
4 medical prescriptions and discharge summary. Respondent
No.2 either adduced evidence or produced documents.
5. The tribunal after hearing the arguments, passed
the impugned judgment which is now under challenge.
6. Heard Sri. Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri. H.N.Keshava Prashanth, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that
the tribunal has awarded the compensation under the various
heads such as, pain and suffering, medical expenses,
attendant charges, food and nourishment and future
expenses which is on the lower side. All the heads of
compensation are not considered. Learned counsel argued
that the appellant has spent nearly Rs.75,000/- towards
medical expenses which itself indicates that he has
undergone severe pain. Learned counsel argued that the
tribunal has not awarded compensation under the different
heads instead awarded global compensation which is not just
and proper. With these main contentions, he prays for
enhancement of compensation.
8. Against this learned counsel for respondent No.2
argued that compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and
proper looking to the evidence placed before the tribunal and
he submits that the same needs no interference. With these
main contentions, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have perused the appeal memo, the impugned
judgment and records of the case.
10. The accident is not in dispute and the liability of
the insurance company is also not in dispute. Ex.P6 -
medical bills shows that the injured was in hospital from
13.12.2010 to 18.12.2010. It is also evident that he has
sustained fracture of right trochentric and sustained other
injuries. As per Ex.P23 - discharge summary, he was advised
to take rest and medicines as per prescription. He was
conservatively treated.
11. A person who sustained fracture of right
trochentric requires minimum three months to reunite and
rest. In this case, the petitioner is aged about 35 years at the
time of accident. It is contended that he was doing some
electrical work and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month
and ofcourse, he has not produced any document in support
of his income. In the absence of any proof of income,
considering the age of the deceased and as the accident is of
the year 2010, as per the Lok-Adalath chart, the notional
income at Rs.6,500/- per month is to be taken as income of
the appellant. Hence, by taking the income of the appellant
at Rs.6,500/- and considering the treatment period, it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 x 3)
towards loss of income during treatment period. He has
sustained fracture of femur, therefore, he is entitled for
compensation towards 'pain and suffering' in a sum of
Rs.25,000/-. He has produced medical bills for a sum of
Rs.24,929/- and the same is just and proper. Appellant is
also entitled for compensation towards 'food, nourishment
and attendant charges during laid up period', hence, a sum
of Rs.8,000/- is awarded under the said head. The appellant
has not examined the doctor regarding disability. However,
he has to suffer unhappiness and inconvenience throughout
of his life due to the fracture sustained in the accident.
Hence, a sum of Rs.7,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of
amenities'. In all the appellant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.84,429/- which is rounded off to Rs.85,000/-. Looking
to all these aspects, the appellant is entitled for further
enhancement of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been
awarded by the tribunal at Rs.60,000/-.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.85,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The respondent No.2 shall make good the
differential amount within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(iv) Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
