Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha R vs Sri Harish A M on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7047/2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9407/2015 (MV-I)
MFA NO.7047/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISION OFFICE, NO.42 GOPAL COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, YASHWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE-560 022
THROUGH MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
HUB, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.R RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETHA R D/O J RANGAPPA
W/O SREENIVASA KATTELU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.299, MAHAVEER APARTMENT
BESIDES BETHESA CHURCH
K.S TOWN, BANGALORE-560 060
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.572, 2ND FLOOR, 19TH CROSS
23RD 'B' MAIN SECTOR-2 HSR LAYOUT
BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 102
2. HARISH A.M
S/O A.P MAGADI SHETTY
MAJOR
2
R/AT NO.1, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN
SRIKANTESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 096 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.H SOMASHEKHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 01.07.2021)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, IN M.V.C.NO. 5361/2014.
MFA NO.9407/2015:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHA R
D/O J.RANGAPPA
W/O SRINIVASA KATTELU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.299, MAHAVEER
APARTMENT, BESIDES BETHESDA
CHURCH, K.S. TOWN
BANGALORE-560 060
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.572, 2ND FLOOR, 19TH CROSS
23RD B MAIN, SECTOR-2
HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE-560 102 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.H. SOMASHEKHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI HARISH A.M
S/O A.P. MAGADI SHETTY
MAJOR, R/AT NO.1, 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 096
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSU. CO. LTD
DO-8, OFFICE CODE NO.671 600
NO.42, GOPAL COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, BAZAAR STREET
3
YASHWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE-560 022
REPTD. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 18.01.2018)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, IN M.V.C.NO. 5361/2014
AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are arising out of judgment and
award dated 23.07.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.5361/2014 on
the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the claimant and
learned Counsel for the Insurer.
4. The claimant who claimed to be a teacher met
with an accident on 22.11.2014. The accident occurred on
account of collision between Hero Honda Motorcycle and Tata
Sumo vehicle. The police after investigation have filed charge
sheet against Tata Sumo vehicle.
5. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- which was allowed in part
awarding compensation of Rs.2,83,400/- along with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation.
6. The claimant has preferred an appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation. The Insurer has also preferred
an appeal for reduction of compensation. Both the cases are
clubbed together and heard together.
7. It is forthcoming from the records that the
claimant sustained fracture of distal radius of right hand. It is
also forthcoming from the records that the doctor has issued
disability certificate to an extent of 14% to the whole body.
8. Learned Counsel for the claimant would submit
that the claimant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and on
account of disability, she was asked to resign from the
services and as such her functional disability has to be taken
at 100%. On this ground, learned Counsel for the claimant
would seek for enhancement of the compensation.
9. Learned Counsel for the Insurer would submit that
there is no functional disability so far as the claimant is
concerned. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded
compensation of Rs.1,34,400/- towards loss of future earning
capacity. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for
the Insurer that award of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period taking the claimant's income at
Rs.8,000/- p.m. in the absence of any proof relating to her
salary is erroneous.
10. This Court has considered the rival contentions of
the claimant as well as the insurer and perused the records.
11. The documents produced before the Court would
reveal that the doctor has issued a disability certificate that
the claimant has suffered disability of 14% to the whole body.
The Tribunal has taken the disability at 10% and income of
the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month and the Tribunal has
calculated the loss of future income at Rs.1,34,400/-.
12. This Court has perused the evidence given by the
doctor. The doctor in his evidence does not say that the
claimant is incapable of working as a teacher. In the absence
of any such positive evidence by the claimant and the doctor
relating to the functional disability, the Tribunal could not have
awarded compensation of Rs.1,34,400/- under the head of
loss of future earnings. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
13. It is also forthcoming from the record that the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period. The salary certificate produced by the
claimant at Ex.P11 would indicate that she was drawing salary
of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.200/- was deducted towards
professional tax. Therefore her net salary would be
Rs.19,800/- per month.
14. This Court has admitted the two additional
documents in evidence in this appeal. The first document
dated 14.07.2017 would reveal that the claimant was working
in National Public School, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru
from 05.05.2014 to 10.04.2015. The bank account furnished
by the claimant would reveal that the claimant was getting
salary of Rs.19,800/- per month. The said passbook would
reveal that the claimant was not given salary in the months of
January and February 2015. Therefore, loss of income during
laid period would have to be taken for two months. The
claimant is entitled to 'loss of salary during the laid up period
of two months' which comes to Rs.39,600/- as against
Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
15. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.35,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of amenities in life.
16. Considering the nature of the injuries and also
considering the disability suffered by the claimant, this Court
is of the view that the compensation under the head 'pain and
suffering' is to be enhanced by Rs.15,000/- and under the
head 'loss of amenities' to be enhanced by another
Rs.15,000/- Thus the enhanced compensation awarded by this
Court under the above said heads comes to Rs.45,600/-.
17. As regard the medical expenses and other
incidental expenses which is awarded at Rs.70,000/-, no
interference is called for. Thus the claimant is entitled to
compensation as under:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded
(In Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 50,000/-
2 Loss of income during period of 39,600/-
treatment
3 Loss of amenities in life 35,000/-
4 Medical expenses, Traveling 70,000/-
expenses, conveyance charges,
attendant charges and other
incidental expenses.
Total 1,94,600/-
18. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are disposed of.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
23.07.2015 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.5361/2014 are modified.
(iii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,94,600/-.
(iv) It is also noticed that the Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court is
consistently awarding interest at 6% per annum. Therefore
the interest is also reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per
annum.
(v) Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation awarded with interest after deducting the
amount, if any, already paid.
(vi) The entire amount in deposit be transmitted to the
jurisdictional Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
