Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath G H vs K R Srinivasa on 18 January, 2021
Author: N S Gowda
MFA.250/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.No.250/2016 (MV -I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH.G.H.
S/O SRI. HAMESADHWAJA, G.S.,
AGE 22 YEARS, OCC:CORPORATE SALES EXECUTIVE,
R/O NO.278/2, 9TH 'A' MAIN,
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., FOR SRI. SURESH.M.LATHUR,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.R.SRINIVASA,
S/O RAMASHETTY,
DOOR NO.75, LIG,
2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
MANDYA - 571 401.
2. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.144, 2ND FLOOR,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 05.06.2017, NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH,
SRI SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
MFA.250/2016
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:14.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5505/13 ON THE
FILE OF THE 21ST ACMM & 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, BENGALURU, 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
1. The Claimant is in appeal, being dissatisfied with
the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. The fact that an accident occurred on 04.09.2013
when the claimant was riding pillion on a motorcycle
when the motor cycle collided with Maxi Cab is not in
dispute. The fact that the Maxi Cab was insured is also
not in dispute.
3. The Tribunal on assessing the evidence has
recorded the finding that the accident did indeed occur
and as a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered
grievous injuries and it has proceeded to hold that the
MFA.250/2016
claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- in all as
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that
the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards
medical expenses when there was clear documentary
evidence that the claimant had spent a sum of
Rs.14,426/-. She also submitted that the claimant had
suffered an amputation of fourth toe and the award of a
sum of Rs.20,000/- only towards pain and suffering was
extremely low. She also submitted that the claimant has
been suffered an amputation, he was entitled for the
compensation on the head of loss of amenities.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the
other hand contended that a sum of Rs.20,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper and it did
not call for any interference.
MFA.250/2016
6. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties and perused the materials on
record.
7. It cannot be disputed that as per Ex.P7 i.e., the
discharge summary, the claimant did suffer an
amputation of fourth right toe. In my view, the claimant
being 20 years old would have suffered immensely due
to the amputation and he would be maimed for life. I am
therefore of the view that the claimant would entitled for
a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and a
further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities.
8. In my view the Tribunal has also erred in not
awarding any sum towards medical expenses, especially,
when documentary evidence was produced to show that
the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.14,426/-. I therefore
deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
medical expenses.
MFA.250/2016
9. As a result, the claimant would be entitled for
following compensation:
1 Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
2 Loss of amenities 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 1,15,000/-
10. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.
11. The Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
