Krishnakumar vs A. Monappa Gowda
2021 Latest Caselaw 3833 Kant

                             1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

               M.F.A. NO.6032/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVA
R/AT KODI HOUSE
PERAJE VILLAGE
MADIKERE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT.
                                               ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI KARUNAKARA P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

       1. A MONAPPA GOWDA
          AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
          S/O DEVAPPA GOWDA
          R/AT ADIGARA HOUSE
          THODIKANA VILLAGE
          SULLIA TALUK
          DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

       2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
          BRANCH OFFICE AT PUTTUR
          PRABHU BUILDING
          PUTTUR
          DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
 R1 SERVED)
                                2


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 29.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.349/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AND PUTTUR, D.K. ITINERATE AT SULLIA, D.K., PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging

the judgment and award dated 29.05.2014 in MVC

No.349/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge

and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puttur

(Itinerate Sullia, D.K.) (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. Facts in brief for the adjudication of this appeal

are that on 21.11.2008 at about 4 p.m, the claimant was

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

19-L-8362 from Sullia towards Madikeri and when he

reached near N.M. P.U.College, driver of the Pick-up

vehicle bearing registration No. KA-21-A-9952, drove the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorcycle of the claimant and as a result of the same, the

claimant sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was

shifted to K.V.G. Hosptial, Sullia and thereafter, moved to

Unity Health Complex at Mangalore for further treatment.

As such, the claimant filed MVC No.349/2010 on the file of

the Tribunal seeking compensation.

4. After service of summons, respondents entered

appearance and filed their separate written statements

denying the averments made in the claim petition .

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal

has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order

to establish the case, claimant examined himself as PW1

and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On the

other hand, no evidence was adduced on behalf of

respondents, however, they produced Insurance Policy and

the same was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, after

considering the material on record, by its judgment and

award dated 29.05.2015 allowed the claim petition in-part

and awarded compensation of Rs.47,960/- with interest at

6% p.a from the date of the petition till realisation and

directed respondent No.2- Insurance Company to satisfy

the compensation. Being not satisfied with the amount of

compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimant has

presented this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

6. Sri Karunakara.P., learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the award of compensation

granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and same is

required to be enhanced in this appeal. He further argued

that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under

the head of loss of amenities and as such, prays that just

compensation be awarded in this appeal.

7. Sri P.B.Raju, learned counsel for the

respondent-Insurance Company contended that award of

compensation made by the Tribunal is just and proper and

the same 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. It is not in dispute

that the claimant sustained injuries on account of road

traffic accident occurred on 21.11.2008. The claimant has

sustained injuries as stated in Ex.P5-wound certificate.

Perusal of the finding recorded by Tribunal would indicate

that the claimant has not examined the Doctor to ascertain

the loss of disability suffered on account of road traffic

accident and as such, I have carefully examined the award

of compensation made by the Tribunal under various

heads. Taking into account that the claimant was in-patient

for a period of ten days and considering the nature of

injury sustained by him as set out at Ex.P5, I am of the

view that the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.20,000/-

towards food, nourishment and conveyance charges;

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities. In view of the fact

that the claimant has failed to prove the disability, I do not

find any ground to interfere with the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss

of income on account of disability. Accordingly, the award

made by the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimant

is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,32,951/- as

against Rs.47,960/-. The same shall carry interest at the

rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. In

the result, appeal is allowed in-part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB