Karnataka High Court
K.K. Bhaskaran vs Laxman Ganiga on 26 May, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M.F.A. NO.2059 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
K.K. BHASKARAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA NAMBIYAR
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
RUBBER BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE
AVN BUILDING, MAIN ROAD
KUNDAPRUA, UDUPI DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADV.)
AND:
1. LAXMAN GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA GANIGA
R/O. MELHITHLU HOUSE
NAVUNDA POST
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SUDEV PLAZA
3RD FLOOR, DAJBEN PETH
OPPOSITE LAXMI TEMPLE
HUBLI-580029
REP:BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR R2)
---
2
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.713/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has
been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated
23.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
MVC No.713/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that the injured claimant was traveling in a Xylo
car bearing registration No.KA 20 C-858 on 08.02.2012. At
about 3.15 p.m. when the car reached near Mahalingeshwara
Temple, Idoor Kunjadi village, Kundapura Taluk, the driver of
the car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result of which, the driver lost control over the
car and the car hit the side of the road. In the aforesaid
accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The appellant thereupon filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the
accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Xylo car. It is inter alia pleaded
that the appellant, at the time of accident was aged 55 years
and was employed as Development Officer in Rubber Board.
It was also pleaded that the claimant used to earn
Rs.50,000/- and he was required to remain inpatient for a
period of 55 days. It is also pleaded that the claimant
sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40% to his
left lower limb and 33% to his right upper limb. Accordingly,
the compensation along with interest was claimed.
4. The Insurance Company filed written statement, in
which averments made in the claim petition were denied. It
was further pleaded that the driver of the car did not have a
valid and effective driving licence and the amount of
compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, one
Manju as PW-2 and Dr.Monappa Naik as PW-3 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. The
respondents examined one L.D.Lamani as RW-1, Arun as
RW-2 and Johnson K.G. as RW-3 and got marked documents
Ex.R1 to Ex.R24. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Xylo car by its
driver. It was further held that the claimant is entitled to
compensation to the tune of Rs.8,61,241/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background,
this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
amount of compensation awarded under the heads pain and
suffering, loss of amenities in life and future medical
expenses are on the lower side. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal.
7. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The only question which arises for our consideration in this
appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The
doctor has assessed the permanent disability sustained by
the appellant to the extent of 40% to the left lower limb and
33% to the right upper limb. The appellant has sustained
the following injuries:
1. Right proximal humerus fracture.
2. Subtrochanteric fracture of left femur
3. Left knee haemarthrosis
4. Reduced and dislocation of left shoulder joint
The appellant has suffered the following disabilities:
a. He has 0-60 degrees of abduction, 0-20 degrees
of adduction, 0-80 degrees of flexion, 0-10 degrees of
extension rotation, 0-45 degrees of internal rotation
movements in his right shoulder joint.
b. He has grade III power in his deltoid muscle.
c. He is unable to do overhead activities and
activities of daily living in his right upper limb.
d. He has 0-80 degrees of flexion in his right knee
joint.
e. He has 0-35 degrees of abductions, 0-20 degrees
of adduction, 0-10 degrees of internal rotation
and external rotation movements in his left hip
joint.
f. He has grade IV power in his left hip abductors,
left quadriceps and left hamstrings.
g. He is unable to sit cross-legged, squat and run.
8. Taking into account the nature of injuries and the
disability sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded
under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities in
life as well as future medical expenses appears to be on the
lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- each.
Thus, the appellant is held entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.90,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the
petition till the realization of the amount of compensation.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
