Suresh S/O Pennaiah vs Ramanjineyulu S/O Sanjeevappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 11462 Kant

                              -1-




                                      MFA No. 100761 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                           BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100761 OF 2016
                            (MV-I)

BETWEEN:


      SURESH S/O PENNAIAH
      AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
      R/O: MEENAHALLI VILLAGE,
      SIDIGINAMOLA POST,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.



                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.    RAMANJINEYULU S/O. SANJEEVAPPA
      AGE: 45 YEARS,
      DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING
      NO.KA-34/T-7393,
      C/O K.M. MARE GOUD,
      R/O: GYLACHINTHA VILLAGE, (POST),
      BALLARI TALUKK AND DISTRICT.

2.    K.M.MARE GOUDA
      S/O LATE K.M. LINGANA GOUDA
      AGE: 56 YEARS,
      OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
      NO.KA-34/T-7393,
      R/O: BYLACHINTHA VILLAGE, (POST),
                              -2-




                                    MFA No. 100761 of 2016


     BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT.

3.   M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     BY ITS MANAGER,
     S.L.V. TOWERS, DOUBLE ROAD,
     PARVATHINAGAR MAIN ROAD,
     BALLARI.



                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED
SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.04/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL-XII, AT BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR   COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the tribunal is that, he met with an accident on

18.06.2014, as a result he has suffered the fracture of

tibia and fibula and the same is also a compounded

comminuted fracture and in order to substantiate the

MFA No. 100761 of 2016

same, he examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and P.W.2

assessed the disability of 60% to the whole body,

however, the tribunal has taken the disability of 10% and

awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the pain and

suffering and loss of income taking the income of

Rs.4,500/- though an accident was taken place in the year

2014. The tribunal not awarded any compensation under

the head of future medical expenses as well as the laid up

period and also the attendant charges and hence, it

requires interference.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submits that, though the Doctor has

been examined as P.W.2 he has exorbitantly assessed the

disability of 60% to the whole body and tribunal rightly

taken 10% disability to particular limb and income taken

was little lesser side and hence, it does not requires any

interference.

MFA No. 100761 of 2016

4. Having heard the respective counsel and on

perusal of the material on record, the point that would

arise for consideration of this Court are;

(ii) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

(iii) What order ?

5. Answer to Point No.1: Having heard the

respective counsel and on perusal of the material the

document Ex.P.5 discloses that he has suffered fracture of

tibia and fibula and nature of injuries are also Grade IIIB

compound comminuted segmental fracture and also both

bones left leg with bone loss and in order to prove the

factum of disability, the claimant also examined the Doctor

as P.W.2. No doubt the Doctor assessed the disability of

60%, but the fact that only the nature of injuries are Type

III compound comminuted fracture of tibia and fibula and

when such being the case the tribunal has committed an

error in taking the disability of 10% and failed to take note

of the shortening as well as the compound comminuted

MFA No. 100761 of 2016

fracture and hence ought to have considered the disability

of 20% and hence, this Court has to revisit and reassess

the compensation.

6. Having perused the material available on

record, he was an inpatient for a period of 20 days and

also suffered compound comminuted fracture of tibia and

fibula and hence, the compensation awarded is very

meager under the head of pain and sufferings and the

same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- against Rs.30,000/-. The

medical expenses based on the documentary evidence

awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and also considered

the medical bills amounting to Rs.1,41,288/-, and also

considered the attendant charges and other incidental

expenses awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and hence,

it does not require any interference for enhancing the

compensation, however, committed an error in assessing

loss of income on the ground of disability. This Court has

re-assessed the disability at 20% and taking his income as

Rs.7,500/-X12X15X20%, it comes to Rs.2,70,000/-.

MFA No. 100761 of 2016

7. The loss of future amenities only an amount of

Rs.10,000/- is awarded and the same is very meager and

he is aged about 38 years and he has to lead his rest of

life with the disability of 20% and hence, it is appropriate

to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss

of future amenities. The Doctor who has been examined

before the tribunal has deposed that he is in need of one

more surgery and no compensation is awarded under the

head of future medical expenses and hence, it is

appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the

head of future medical expenses. The claimant is also

entitled for compensation for loss of income under the

head of laid up period, having taken note of the compound

comminuted fracture and he was an inpatient for a period

of 20 days and hence, it is appropriate to consider the loss

of income for a period of five months, taking the income of

Rs.7,500/- which comes to Rs.37,500/- and also in terms

of Ex.P.9, the fractures are not united and he needs one

more surgery and not stated anything about the future

MFA No. 100761 of 2016

medical expenses, however, considering his evidence that

the fracture is not united and he needs one more surgery,

it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- under

the head of future medical expenses.

8. Answer to point No.2 : In view of the

discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part.

The Judgment and award dated 02.01.2016 in MVC No.4/2015 passed by the Member, MACT-XIII, Ballari, is modified. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,07,500/- with interest, as against Rs.2,91,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

The Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation within a period of six weeks from today.

The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE SVH