Karnataka High Court
Smt Vasantha B vs Sri M Nagarajappa on 8 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
M.F.A. No. 503/2015 (MV)
Between:
Smt. Vasantha. B
Aged about 47 years,
W/o Jayaram,
Residing at No.8, 1st Cross,
1st Main Road, Sharada Nivas,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560 027.
... Appellant
(BY Sri Gurudev Prasad. K.T., Advocate)
And:
1. Sri. M. Nagarajappa
S/o Murugendraiah,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No.4,
Video School Road,
Havnoor Layout,
Nagasandra Post,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560 073.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.144, Subharam Complex,
2nd Floor, M.G. Road,
132, Brigade Road,
Bangalore-560 001
... Respondents
(BY Sri O.Mahesh, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is Dispensed with)
2
This M.F.A. is filed u/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
judgment and Award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC
No.7553/2012 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small
Causes, XXVI ACMM, (SCCH-09), Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition and
seeking enhance of compensation.
This M.F.A coming on for hearing this day, the court,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC
No.7553/2012 on the file of the Small Causes and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter
referred to as "Tribunal"), seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.06.2012
at about 5.30 p.m., when claimant was standing on the left
side of the Hesaraghatta Main road, near Saviruchi Hotel, a
motor bike bearing registration No. KA-53-J-3567 came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant, due
to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and she
was shifted to Sapthagiri hospital for first aid and
thereafter, she was moved to Shekar Hospital for regular
treatment. It is the case of the claimant that she was
working as Accountant in Universal Ink Factory and was
drawing more than Rs.19,500/- per month as salary and
on account of disability suffered in the accident, she was
removed from the service. On the basis of these grounds,
the claimant has filed MVC No.7553/2012 on the file of
Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. After service of summons, respondent No.1
remained absent and therefore, was placed ex-parte.
Respondent No.2-Isurance Company entered appearance
and filed detailed written statement denying the averments
made in the claim petition and contended that alleged
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
claimant and the compensation sought for in the claim
petition is exorbitant. Accordingly, Insurance Company
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the
Tribunal has formulated issues for its consideration. In
order to establish her case, claimant examined herself as
PW1 and examined two other independent witnesses as
PW2 and PW3 and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to
P24. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced on
behalf of respondents. The Tribunal, after considering the
material on record, by its judgment and award dated
14.08.2014 allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded
compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the
rate at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its
realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has
presented this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6. Sri. K.T.Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel for
the appellant contended that the claimant has examined
Doctor-PW2, who opined that the claimant sustained
disability to an extent of 16.6% to the whole body and the
Tribunal has taken disability at 10%, which requires
modification in this appeal. It is further contended that, on
account of the said accident, the claimant was terminated
from the job and as such, the award of compensation
towards 'loss of future earning capacity' is to be modified in
this appeal. It is further contended that, the Tribunal failed
to award compensation towards, 'future medical expenses'
and therefore, he argued that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced in
this appeal.
7. Per contra, Sri.O Mahesh, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company argued that quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
and does not call for interference in this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and carefully considered the finding recorded by the
Tribunal and perused the records. Perusal of the records
would indicate that the claimant sustained injuries on
account of road traffic accident occurred on 17.06.2012
involving a motor bike bearing registration No. KA-53-J-
3567. In order to prove the accident, the claimant has
produced documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and having
considered the same, I am of the view that the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on Issues 1 and 2 is just and
proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal.
9. Insofar as award of compensation is concerned,
the perusal of the testimony of PW2-Doctor, would establish
that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of
16.6% to the whole body; and due to the said disability,
the earning capacity of the claimant would be affected.
Perusal of the deposition of PW3, who is the Manager of
Universal Ink Factory, would indicate that the claimant was
working as Accountant in Universal Ink Factory and was
drawing salary of Rs.19,500/- per month as per Ex.P7-
salary certificate. In that view of the matter, considering
Ex.P24-Muster Roll Copy, the finding recorded by Tribunal
in considering the salary of the claimant at Rs.16,000/-, is
just and proper and does not call for interference in this
appeal. However, considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant, and the fact that she was an
inpatient for a period of six days and suffered two fractures
as per the wound certificate produced at Ex.P2, I am of the
view that Rs.50,000/- to be awarded under the head of
'pain and suffering' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'attendant
charges, extra nutritious food and transportation. Further,
having regard to the fact that the claimant had sustained
two fractures as per Ex.P2-wound certificate and after re-
appreciating the evidence of Doctor-PW2, in my opinion,
the Tribunal erred in considering the disability at 10% and
same requires to be modified as claimant having suffered
disability at 16% to the whole body and accordingly, award
of compensation granted under the head of 'loss future
earning capacity' requires to be modified. Therefore, the
claimant is entitled for Rs.4,30,080/- (Rs.16,000/-x 12 x 14
x 16%) under the head 'loss of future earning capacity'. I
have also noticed that the compensation awarded under the
head of 'loss of future amenities' is on the lower side, and
the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. I find force in the
submission of learned counsel appearing for the claimant
that the Tribunal has not awarded 'future medical
expenses'. Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards 'future medical
expenses'. The compensation awarded under the head of
'loss of income during laid up period', remain unaltered.
10. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the
compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant is
re-assessed as follows:
Sl. Heads Before
No. This Court
1 Loss of Future Income 4,30,080
(16000x12x14x16/100)
2 Pain and Suffering 50,000
3 Food & Nourishment and
Attendant charges 15,000
4 Loss of Income during
laid up period 48,000
5 Future Medical Expenses 20,000
6 Loss of amenities 30,000
Total 5,93,080
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The
judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Court
of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC No.7553/2012 is modified. Compensation
of Rs.3,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.5,93,080/-. The compensation amount shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
