Annappa Sherigar vs Sri.B.Manjunatha
2021 Latest Caselaw 2161 Kant

                             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.7840/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

ANNAPPA SHERIGAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL HEIR
SMT. MAMATHA SHERIGAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O ANNAPPA SHERIGAR,
R/AT HEERABETTU,
UPPOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.                      ... APPELLANT

              (BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI B. MANJUNATHA,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       S/O GOVINDA,
       R/AT "EVEREST NILAYA"
       HOSALA VILLAGE,
       UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
       NWKRTS HUBLI,
       (H.P.V.STAGE CARRIAGE),
       NORTH CANARA DIVISION,
       SIRSI.                               ... RESPONDENTS

          (BY SMT. S. NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
             R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                               2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.02.2013
PASSED IN MVC.NO.413/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

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

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 11.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.413/2010 on the file of

the MACT, Udupi ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the

quantum of compensation.

2. The grounds urged in this appeal is that the Tribunal

has committed an error in awarding the compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering and the

claimant was an inpatient for a period of three months 11 days

and he was in a vegetative state and bed ridden. The Tribunal

has committed an error in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards future

medical expenses. The Tribunal also committed an error in

taking the income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has

committed an error in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance

charges. The Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.1,96,200/-

towards attendant charges. The Tribunal committed an error in

awarding Rs.15,000/- towards nutritious food, wherein the

appellant has undergone treatment and followed diet for a period

of five years. The learned counsel would submit that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all to the tune of

Rs.14,40,704/- is erroneous and it requires interference of this

Court.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2

would contend that though the accident is of the year 2009, the

Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.6,000/- per month in the

absence of documentary proof and the notional income would be

Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken 90% disability

and under all heads has granted just and reasonable

compensation and hence it does not require interference of this

Court.

4. Having heard the respective learned counsel and on

perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Tribunal

awarded compensation on all the heads including medical

expenses based on the records. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering and

an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head future medical

expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,16,200/- under the head

nutritious food, attendant charges and conveyance charges and

under the said head also, the Tribunal has considered the fact

that the injured was in vegetative state and attendant was

appointed and hence I do not find any error committed by the

Tribunal in awarding the compensation on the other heads also.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,07,200/- under the

head loss of income considering permanent disability as deposed

by the doctor to the extent of 90%. When such being the case, I

do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the

compensation.

5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that no compensation is awarded under the head

loss of amenities. The fact is that the injured is no more and he

has been represented through his wife since after the award the

claimant passed away and hence the question of considering loss

of amenities for the rest of life does not arise. Hence, there are

no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for

enhancing the compensation as contended by the learned

counsel for the appellant.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD