Sri Ravi Kumar @ Ravi vs K S Gopalakrishnan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1966 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                         BEFORE

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

                  M.F.A.NO.235/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:

SRI RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
C/O THIMMEGOWDA
11TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA
HASSAN.
                                         ... APPELLANT
        (BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     K.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN
       S/O SRI RANGNAIDU
       NO.45, ARIYAM PALYA
       SATHYAMANGALAM
       TAMILNADU-638402

       OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY
       BEARING NO.TN-21 F 7374

2.     SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       E-8, EPLP, RALCO INDUSTRIAL AREA
       SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR
       RAJASTHAN-302022.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

        (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
             VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2020
                NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.724/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-1, HASSAN, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the

quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.724/2011 dated

24.09.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT-1

at Hassan.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant

has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on

09.12.2020 at 4.00 p.m. near Maarenahally Gate, Mysore Road

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ashok

Layland lorry bearing Registration No.TN-21-F-7374. As a

result, he has sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as

inpatient and is unable to do the work which he was doing

earlier.

3. The claimant to substantiate his claim examined

himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2. He also

relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P19.

4. The respondent-Insurance Company contested the

matter and not adduced any evidence. The Tribunal, after

considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the

documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim

petition in part granting compensation of Rs.2,04,200/- with

interest at 6% per annum.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the

counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal would

vehemently contend that he was an inpatient in the hospital for

a period of 16 days and the Doctor, who has been examined as

P.W.2 has deposed that the claimant has suffered 19% disability

to left lower limb and Tribunal has committed an error in taking

the disability at 6%. The Tribunal has also committed an error

in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the claimant was running a Rice Mill and was having agricultural

property and as a result of the disability caused due to the

accident, he is unable to do the agricultural work. The learned

counsel would vehemently submit that in all the heads, the

Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager

compensation and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that

the accident is of the year 2010 and the Tribunal has rightly

awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of 'Injury, pain,

sufferings and shock'. The Tribunal has also considered the

'Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life' and awarded an amount

of Rs.20,000/-. He would further contend that the Tribunal

taking into consideration the income of the claimant and the

accident is of the year 2010 has awarded just and reasonable

compensation towards 'Loss of income during laid up period',

'Loss of future earning capacity' and has also considered the

'Conveyance and attendant charges' and hence, it does not

require any interference of this Court.

8. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel,

the point that arises for consideration before this Court is:

"Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court".

9. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal

memo and the oral submissions of respective counsel, it is not in

dispute that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the

accident. The claimant has relied upon the document at Ex.P4

which is issued by the Government Hospital, Channarayapatna to

show that he has sustained crush injury to right foot and right

heel. The discharge summary issued by Vikaram Hospital which

is marked as Ex.P10 shows that the claimant had undergone

wound debridement on 10.12.2010, ALT free flap coverage for

right heel defect on 14.12.2010 and SSG on 18.12.2010. The

records also reveal that he has taken treatment in the Vikram

Hospital between 09.12.2010 and 25.12.2010.

10. Having considered the nature of injuries, the

treatment given to the claimant, the Tribunal has committed an

error in awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the head of

'Injury, pain, sufferings and shock'. Taking note of the fact that

the accident is of the year 2010, it is appropriate to enhance the

same and award a sum Rs.50,000/-.

11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-

towards 'Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life' which is just

and reasonable and it does not require any interference of this

Court.

12. Regarding disability is concerned, the Doctor, who

has been examined as P.W.2 has issued the disability certificate

showing deformity at 19%. However, the Tribunal has

considered the disability at 6%. Having taken note of the nature

of injuries, particularly to the left lower limb that too, a crush

injury to right foot and right heel, the Tribunal ought to have

taken the disability at 8%, instead of 6%. The Tribunal has also

committed an error in taking the income of the claimant at

Rs.4,000/- per month applying the right multiplier '15'. The

accident is of the year 2010 and hence, the notional of the

claimant would be Rs.5,500/- per month and having taken note

of the documents at Exs.P6 to P9 which are RTC extracts, it is

evident that he is an Agriculturist. Hence, an amount of

Rs.500/- is to be added to the notional income and if the same is

added, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,000/- per month.

Therefore, a sum of Rs.86,400/- (6,000x12x15x8/100) is

awarded towards 'Loss of future earning capacity'

13. The Tribunal while considering the medical bills at

Exs.P15(1) to P15(33), in para No.14 of the judgment has

observed that some of the receipts already find place in the

discharge bills of the Vikram Hospital which comes to

Rs.75,997/-. Hence, the Tribunal considering the same has

awarded a sum of Rs.76,000/- which is just and reasonable.

14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-

towards 'Laid up period' for a period of three months. However,

taking into consideration the income of the claimant at

Rs.6,000/- per month and he was inpatient for a period of 16

days and was subjected to surgery, the Tribunal ought to have

taken the monthly income for a period of four months which

comes to Rs.24,000/-.

15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-

towards 'Conveyance and attendant charges'. It is not in dispute

that the claimant has taken treatment at Vikram Hospital from

09.12.2010 to 25.12.2010. When such being the case, the

compensation awarded under the said head requires to be

modified and the same is modified as Rs.15,000/- instead of

Rs.8,000/-.

16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-

towards 'Future medical expenses'. The learned counsel

appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimant

requires Rs.25,000/- for future medical expense as deposed by

the Doctor-P.W.2. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of

Rs.15,000/- under the said head as the accident is of the year

2010 and hence, the same does not require any interference.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and award passed in M.V.C.

No.724/2011 dated 24.09.2012 on the file of Principal District Judge and MACT-1, Hassan is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,86,400/-

as against Rs.2,04,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount within four weeks from today.

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST