The National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sri Srinivas E M S/O E Manjappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 11236 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

                MFA No.3831 OF 2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRINIVAS E.M.
30 YEARS
S/O.E.MANJAPPA
R/AT.NO.7/1/12, OPP:ESHWAR MEDICALS
S.L.N. BUILDING, KATHRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
VIVAKANANDA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 85.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,
FOR M/S.LAWYERS NET)

AND:

1.     SANTHOSH KUMAR.C
       MAJOR
       S/O.CHIKKE GOWDA
       NO.153, AVALAHALLI MAIN ROAD
       SRINAGAR
       BANGALORE - 50.

2.     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
       THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       ABOVE FOOD WORLD
       LINGARAJA COMPLEX
                                     2



       GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD
       BANGALORE - 560 004.
                                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.NARAYANAPPA, ADV., FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH
V/O.DTD.6.11.2013)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24-07-2010 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 2828/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MACT
& CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
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 by the claimant seeking enhancement of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of

learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

4. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the

claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 29-03-2007 due to rash

and negligent riding of a motor cycle bearing registration

No.KA-41-E-3953 by its rider and liability of the insurer of the

offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in

the appeal is:

"Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"

5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for parties

and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the

view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and

reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence it is required to be

enhanced.

6. As per wound certificate Ex.P4, the claimant has

sustained following injuries:-

a) Fracture of both medial and lateral malleoli of right ankle.

b) Lacerated wound over chin measuring 3 cms x 0.5 cms.

c) Abrasions over palm of right hand and shin of right leg.

The injuries sustained by the claimant are also evident from

discharge summary, laboratory report, X-rays, case sheet produced at

Ex.P7, P8, P11 and P12 respectively, and supported by oral evidence

of the claimant and doctor, who were examined as PWs-1 and 2

respectively. PW-2, doctor in his evidence has stated that the

claimant has suffered disability of 26% to the limb and 8% to the

whole body.

7. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

claimant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards

'pain and suffering' is just and proper and there is no scope for

enhancement.

8. As Rs.36,973/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical

expenses' is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant and

as Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'incidental expenses'

such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges for treatment

taken by claimant as inpatient for 2 days are just and proper and there

is no scope for enhancement under these heads.

9. The claimant claims to be working at Mahindra Finance

Firm and earning a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month. He has produced

the salary certificate at Ex.P6. The nature of injuries suggest that he

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months

and therefore a sum of Rs.39,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of

income during laid up period' as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

10. It is not the case of the claimant that after sustaining

injuries, he has left the employment. Therefore, awarding

compensation towards 'loss of future income' does not arise.

Nevertheless, he has to bare with the disability stated by the Doctor

and certain amount of discomfort and unhappiness in his future life,

considering the same, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards 'loss

of amenities' and 'permanent disability'.

11. Considering the nature of injuries, Rs.10,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'future medical expenses' is just and proper

and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following

compensation:-

                HEADS                             Rs.
  Pain and sufferings                               50,000
  Medical Expenses                                  36,973
  Incidental expenses                                 9,000
  Loss of income during laid up period              39,000
  Loss of amenities and permanent                   40,000
  disability
  Future medical expenses                            10,000
                TOTAL                              1,84,973
  LESS: the compensation awarded by                1,35,973
  the Tribunal
               BALANCE                               49,000



       13.    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.        The

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent

stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for an additional

compensation of Rs.49,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date

of claim petition till the date of realization.

14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

additional compensation amount together with interest within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

JUDGE

VMB