Sri B N Ravindranath vs The Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 9848 Kant

                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              MFA.NO.7741/2011(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI B N RAVINDRANATH
S/O R.B.C. NAGARAJ
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O NO. 2, 2ND CROSS
MANJUNATHA NILAYA
GKN COLLEGE ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI
BANGALORE-78                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUMANTH .L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGER
       M/S THE NATIONAL INS CO LTD
       REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144
       SUBBARAM COMPLEX,
       MADHURA COATS BUILDING,M.G. ROAD
       BANGALORE-01

2.     SRI. PRATIK MAIYA, MAJOR
       R/AT NO. 275, 37TH CROSS
       JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-11
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
 SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 10.6.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.9089/2008
ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION    FOR     COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                               2




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


                          JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and learned counsel appearing for first respondent -

Insurance Company.

2. The claimant filed MVC.No.9089/2008 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small

Causes Court, Bangalore, seeking compensation. The

claimant was aged 50 years when he met with an

accident on 12.10.2008. The claimant claimed that he

was working in a firm called "Rama Tyres". As against a

claim of `5,00,000/-, compensation of `1,66,400/- was

awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The

claimant being dissatisfied with the award has

presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

3. The insurer has admitted the liability. The

insurer has not questioned the impugned judgment and

award. The only question that needs to be answered in

this case is,

Whether the claimant is entitled for

enhanced compensation?

4. It is the case of the claimant that, on

account of the accident, he has suffered grievous

injuries and the Doctor has issued a disability certificate

stating that the claimant has suffered disability of 31%

of left lower limb and 15.5% to whole body. The

Tribunal has not accepted the claim of the claimant that

he was earning `8,500/- per month. To substantiate his

claim that he was earning `8,500/- per month as salary,

the claimant has produced Ex.P11 - the certificate

issued by his employer which reveals that he was

earning `8,500/- and he did not attend the office from

13.10.2008 to 07.05.2009. This document was

seriously objected by the insurer on the ground that the

claimant has to examine the author of the document.

He has to produce salary slips, bank statements to

prove the salary. However, the claimant has not taken

any steps to produce the documents. Under the

circumstances, the Tribunal has not accepted the

contention of the claimant that he was earning a salary

of `8,500/- per month. The reasoning adopted by the

Tribunal to reject the claim of the appellant to take the

salary at `8,500/- per month is just and proper. In the

absence of proof relating to the income, considering the

fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2008,

the Tribunal has considered notional income of `4,500/-

p.m. and while calculating the loss of income due to

disability, the Tribunal has taken 10% disability to the

whole body and has awarded compensation of

`59,400/- under the head of "loss of future earning".

5. It is noticed from the impugned judgment

and award that the Tribunal has awarded `25,000/-

towards "pain and suffering" and `48,000/- towards

"medical expenses". It is stated that the claimant was

an inpatient for 12 days and the Tribunal has awarded

`9,000/- towards "loss of income during laid-up period".

Considering the fracture sustained by the claimant, this

court is of the view that the award of `9,000/- under

the said head is also just and proper.

6. However, it is noticed that only `10,000/- is

awarded under the head "loss of amenities".

Considering the age and nature of the injuries and the

disability sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the

view that `30,000/- is to be awarded under the head of

"loss of amenities" against the award of `10,000/-

under the said head.

7. The Doctor has given evidence before the

Court stating that the claimant requires future

treatment and he is likely to incur expenditure of

`20,000/- for future medical expenses. The Tribunal

without assigning any reason to discard the evidence of

the Doctor, has awarded `15,000/- towards future

medical expenses. Since the Doctor has opined that the

claimant needs `20,000/-, this Court is of the view that

`20,000/- needs to be awarded under the head of

"future medical expenses".

8. Hence, the total compensation re-

determined by this Court works out to `1,91,400/- as

against `1,66,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

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

impugned judgment and award is modified, awarding

the enhanced compensation of `25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty five Thousand only) with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of petition till

realisation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss