Karnataka High Court
Mr Sanjeeva Gowda vs B N Adinarayana Guptha on 10 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6461/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Mr. SANJEEVA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SESA GOWDA
R/AT. BOLMA HOUSE
DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI KARUNAKAR P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.N.ADINARAYAN GUPTHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O B. NANJAYYA
R/AT MAIN BAZAAR
MADAKASIRA VILLAGE AND TALUK
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
A.P.STATE-515 001
2. THE MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE 201 20B
CRYSTAL PLAZA
OPP: LUFLIND MALT ROAD
ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI-58
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 24.11.2016)
2
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.07.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.981/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, BELTHANGADY, 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 this appeal is listed for admission today, with
the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties,
the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2012
passed in M.V.C.No.981/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge
and MACT., at Belthangady ('the Tribunal' for short),
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on
13.02.2010 at about 6:20 a.m, the appellant/claimant was
proceeding from Dharmasthala to Kanyadi in his Jeep bearing
registration No.CNA 2510, in Dharmasthala-Ujire road, when
he reached near to Marigudi of Dharmasthala village one
Thoofan Maxi Cab bearing registration No.AP-02-V-5669 came
from Ujire side driven by its driver with high speed, in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the said Jeep. As a
result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries.
4. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents have not led any evidence,
however, got marked the copy of the insurance policy as
Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim
petition of the petitioner in part granting compensation of
Rs.58,671/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of
petition till payment. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and
Award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the
claimant.
6. The claimant before the Tribunal has contended
that due to the accident, he has suffered permanent disability,
particularly, he has suffered fracture of superior pubic rami ®,
fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs ® and fracture of leapula ®. He
was an inpatient for a period of 12 days at KMC Hospital. The
Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager
compensation of Rs.58,671/- including the medical bills to
the tune of Rs.22,771/-. Hence, it requires an interference of
this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the
accident is of the year 2010, he was aged about 59 years and
the Doctor also not examined. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation and it does not require any
interference by this Court.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company and
on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the
materials available on record, the points that would arise for
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 an
interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):
9. Having heard the respective counsel and on
perusal of the material available on record, the accident is of
the year 2010 and he has suffered three fractures i.e.,
fracture of superior pubic rami ®, fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs
® and fracture of leapula ® and he was an inpatient for a
period of 12 days. Having taken note of the nature of the
injuries and the fractures sustained and also the year of the
accident i.e., 2010, it is appropriate to award an amount of
Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- on the head of 'pain and
sufferings'.
10. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards 'loss of amenities in future life'. When the injured
was not examined the Doctor and proved the disability, the
question of 'loss of amenities in future life' does not arise.
However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.22,771/-
towards the 'medical expenses' based on the medical bills,
which have been placed before the Tribunal. Hence, it does
not require any interference of this Court.
11. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,400/-
towards 'Loss of earning during treatment' and failed to take
note of the fact that the claimants had suffered the fracture of
superior pubic rami ®, fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs ® and
fracture of leapula ® and in order to unite the fractures,
minimum three months rest is required. Hence, it is
appropriate to take the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per
month. Having taken the same for a period of three months, it
comes to Rs.16,500/- (5500x3) towards 'Loss of earning
during treatment'.
12. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/-
under the head of 'Conveyance, Nourishments and Attendant
charges'. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of 12
days and it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of 'Conveyance, Nourishments and Attendant
charges'.
13. The claimant has not examined any Doctor.
However, in the absence of evidence of the Doctor regarding
disability is concerned, this Court can award an amount of
Rs.30,000/- on the head of 'disability" taking note of his age
57 years at the time of the accident and the fractures suffered
by him without assessing 'the future loss of earning'.
14. In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is
entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,271/- as
against Rs.58,671/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
payment.
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated
25.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.981/2010
on the file of Senior Civil Judge and
MACT., at Belthangady, is modified
granting compensation of Rs.1,14,271/-
as against Rs.58,671/- awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
payment.
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company
is directed to deposit the amount within
six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the
records to the concerned Tribunal,
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
