Mohana vs Vijayraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 2154 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2154 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 June, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Mohana vs Vijayraj on 8 June, 2021

Author: H.P.Sandesh

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                M.F.A.NO.5414/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:
MOHANA
S/O. BHADRA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. NERALE VILLAGE
HOSANAGARA
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-576101.
                                        ... APPELLANT
          (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   VIJAYRAJ
     S/O. CHIKKA
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     R/AT. NEAR PORT BUNGLA
     GANGOLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK
     UDUPI DISTRICT-574 101.

2.   FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
     UNIT No.201 AND 202, 2ND FLOOR
     INLAND AVENUE, M.G.ROAD
     BALLA BHAG, MANGALORE - 575 003
     REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
      (BY SRI MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
            SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2013
                                 2



PASSED IN MVC.NO.403/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up

for final disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 23.02.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.403/2011 on the file of

the Fast Track and Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal at

Kundapura ('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 confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant met

with an accident on 19.08.2010, due to which he suffered head

injury, the CT-brain displaced fracture in parieto occipital region

with scalp heamtoma and the doctor while issuing the wound

certificate opined that the said injuries are grievous in nature.

He was an inpatient for a period of 4 days and he took

conservative treatment. The Tribunal, though in detail discussed

with regard to compensation payable on different heads,

awarded the global compensation of Rs.45,000/-. Being

aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the

appellant/claimant questioning the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that even though he suffered head injury

and CT-Brain displaced fracture in parieto occipital region with

scalp heamtoma, the Tribunal has not considered the same and

committed an error in awarding the global compensation of

Rs.45,000/-. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that

the fracture was united and the claimant was aged about 33

years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly taken

note of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and also

awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.43,000/- on the

other heads. Hence, it does not require interference of this

Court.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company and also perusal of the records, the points

that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court ?

      (ii)     What order?



Points No.1 and 2:-

7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of materials available on record, particularly, the wound

certificate which is marked as Ex.P4, it discloses the cut

lacerated wound and the claimant suffered head injury. As I

have already pointed out the nature of injuries suffered by the

claimant are cut lacerated wound of 10x10 cm over the right

side of the scalp extending from occipital to temporal region

(Rt); CLW of 1x1 cm over the right eyebrow; abrasion of 2x2 cm

over the right dorsum of foot; CT Brain - displaced in parieto

occipital region with scalp heamtoma. I have already pointed

out that the doctor has opined those injuries are grievous in

nature and that there was fracture, for which, he was an

inpatient for a period of 4 days. When such being the case, the

Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of

Rs.40,000/- on the head of 'pain and sufferings'. Accordingly,

an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of 'pain

and sufferings'.

8. The claimant has also produced the medical bills to

the tune of Rs.2,000/- and the same has been rightly considered

by the Tribunal. Hence, it does not requires any interference.

The claimant was an inpatient for a period of 4 days. He was

shifted to Hubli after the accident where he took treatment at

KIMS hospital for the injuries suffered by him. Having taken

note of the same, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards

other 'incidental expenses'.

9. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation under

the head of 'loss of income during laid up period' when the

claimant has suffered head injury and fracture and it requires

three months to unite the said fracture and rest. Having taken

note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2010, the

notional income would be Rs.5,500/- per month. Taking the

income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/- per month for a period of

three months, the loss of income during the laid up period would

come to Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500x3=Rs.16,500).

10. The Tribunal has failed to consider the other aspects

that though the claimant has not examined the doctor in respect

of the disability, taking note of the nature of injuries in the

absence of any evidence with regard to disability, the Tribunal

ought to have awarded compensation on the head of 'loss of

amenities' and also for the 'disability' which the claimant has

suffered. Hence, it is appropriate to award a sum of

Rs.16,500/- towards 'loss of amenities'.

The claimant in all is entitled for compensation to the tune

of Rs.85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till realization.

11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by granting compensation of Rs.85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.45,000/-.