Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesha vs Sri Manjunatha on 7 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.4342/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESHA,
S/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
VIJAPURA COLONY VILLAGE,
MALLIPATTANA HOBLI,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573102. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA,
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
2. THE MANAGER,
SHREERAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPURA,
RAJASTAN-302022. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2021
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2019
PASSED IN MVC.NO.608/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 14.01.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.608/2017 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arkalgud, ('the Tribunal' for
short) questioning the quantum of compensation.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant
met with an accident on 01.01.2017 and sustained grievous
injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition claiming the
compensation and in support of his claim examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to 19 and Exs.C.1 to 3. The respondents
neither lead any evidence nor produced any documents. The
Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding
compensation of Rs.2,30,300/-. Being aggrieved by the same,
the claimant has filed this appeal before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
6. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the
claimant has sustained injuries to tibia and fibula and the doctor
who has been examined has assessed the disability of 12.6% to
the whole body and the Tribunal has taken the disability of 12%.
Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with regard to the
findings of the Tribunal with regard to disability is concerned.
7. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
under the head loss of income during laid up period. The Trial
Court has committed an error in taking the income of
Rs.5,000/- per month and the accident is of the year 2017. The
claimant was a coolie and the notional income would be
Rs.11,000/- per month. Having taken note of two fractures, it
requires four months for uniting of fracture and for rest. Hence,
loss of income during laid up period comes to Rs.44,000/-
(Rs.11,000/- x 4).
8. The Tribunal while assessing future loss of income
has taken the income of Rs.5,000/- per month and the same has
to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. Taking the income of
Rs.11,000/- per month and disability of 12% as assessed by the
doctor and applying the relevant multiplier of '14', the future loss
of income comes to Rs.2,21,760/- (Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 14 x
12%).
9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
under the head loss of future amenities and the same is meager
as he has to lead rest of his life with disability of 12%. Hence
the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
10. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-
under the head pain and suffering and the same is also on the
lesser side. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
11. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of
Rs.61,900/- under the head medical expenses based on the
documents. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with
the same.
12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,600/-
under the head food, conveyance and attendant charges and
other incidental expenses. The claimant was an inpatient for a
period of three days and hence the same is just and reasonable.
13. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- under the head future operation charges and the
same does not require any interference.
In all, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.4,15,260/- as against Rs.2,30,300/-.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 14.01.2019 passed in
M.V.C.No.608/2017 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.4,15,260/- as against
Rs.2,30,300/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
