Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravanaiah vs Sri. Tatha Gatha Khan on 9 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7179 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVANAIAH,
S/O. LATE VENKATAIAH,
AGE:52 YEARS,
OCC:SERVICE AT RAILWAY DIVISION,
RESIDENT OF NO.127, RAGHURAM LAYOUT,
RAMACHANDRAPURA,
JALAHALLI,
BENGALURU NORTH-560 013.
OLD ADDRESS:
NO.72, NEAR CHURCH,
RAMACHANDRAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 021.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. TATHA GATHA KHAN,
S/O SRI. BARENDRANATH,
RESIDENT OF NO.154, 6TH MAIN,
MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU-560 077.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.5TH & 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
2
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 1ST JUNE, 2015
PASSED IN M.V.C No.2847 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the
judgment and award dated 1st June, 2015 passed in M.V.C
No.2847 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (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. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal
that on 15th March, 2011 at about 4.10 p.m, the claimant
was crossing the Road near BEL Market, HMT Road,
Jalahalli, Bengaluru and at that time, the rider of motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HM-5841 dashed to the
claimant and as a result of the same, claimant sustained
grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition
before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.1 was
served but placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance
Company entered appearance and filed detailed written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition. It is the case of respondent No.2-Insurance
Company that, the claimant was working in Railways and
therefore, claimant is not entitled for compensation under
the head loss of earning capacity and also contended that
the compensation sought for in the claim petition is
exorbitant and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim
petition. Based on the pleadings on record, the Tribunal
framed issues for its consideration. In order to prove the
case, the claimant has examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to
PW4 and produced 20 documents and same were got
marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. On the other hand, the
respondents have not adduced any evidence before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and award dated 1st June, 2015,
allowed the claim petition in part and awarded
compensation of Rs.94,218/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Being not satisfied by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this
instant appeal.
5. I have heard Smt. Sunitha B.H., learned counsel
for Sri. Suresh M. Latur, for the appellant and Sri.
Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
6. Smt. Sunitha B.H., learned counsel for the
appellant drew the attention of the Court the injuries
sustained by the claimant as set out at paragraph 12 of the
judgment and contended that the award made by the
Tribunal under various heads is on the lower side, which
requires to be enhanced in this appeal.
7. Per contra, Sri. Janardhan Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance
Company contended that, the award made by the Tribunal
is just and proper which do not call for interference in this
appeal. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the claimant sustained injuries on account of Road
Traffic Accident occurred on 15th March, 2013. It is
forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the
claimant was working as BNC in Medical Department of
Indian Railways, Bengaluru and was drawing a Gross salary
of Rs.31,311/- per month and he was continued to work in
the said department even after the accident and therefore,
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant is not
entitled for compensation under the head loss of earning
capacity is just and proper. However, considering the
evidence of PW2-Doctor, nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, I am of the view that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced in this appeal.
After re-appreciating the evidence on record, I am of the
view that the appellant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of amenities; and Rs.20,000/- towards Food
and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. The
compensation awarded under the other heads remain
unaltered.
9. Accordingly, claimant is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.1,86,218/- as against Rs.94,218/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation.
Appeal, accordingly, is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
