Karnataka High Court
Sri Aslam Pasha vs Sri Y V Venkataramappa on 21 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.3793/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI ASLAM PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL RAFIQKRISHNA REDDY,
R/A NO.914, VV PURAM,
NEAR GOWRI PRIMARY SCHOOL,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN - 561 208
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.Y.V. VENKATARAMAPPA
MAJOR
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
R/A YALAGERE VILLAGE AND POST
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 208
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
P.O. BOX NO.9407,
CHAKALA MIDC POST OFFICE
MUMBAI - 400 093
REP.BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV FOR R2
R1 SD & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE MACT,
BANGALORE AND PASS THE ORDERS TO ENHANCE THE AWARD
2
AMOUNT WITH INTERST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. TILL THE
REALIZATION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GOWRIBIDANUR, IN MVC.NO.14/2008 IN JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.01.2015, ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both the parties the same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is by the petitioner for enhancement.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement contending that the compensation granted is
highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate. The
compensation granted under various heads is on the lower
side and requires reconsideration by this court.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on
06.08.2008 at 1.50 p.m. when petitioner was walking on
the left side of MG Road, Gowribidanur Town, driver of Tata
Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-1027 (herein after
referred to as offending vehicle), drove it in a rash or
negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and as
a result of which petitioner sustained injuries and suffered
permanent partial disability. Respondent No.1 is the owner
and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle
and as such jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
6. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying
the petition averments, but contending that since the
vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 in the event
of allowing the claim petition Respondent No.2 be directed
to pay the compensation.
7. Respondent No.2 though appeared, did not
choose to file written statement.
8. During enquiry petitioner has examined himself
as PW-1 and the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon
Ex.P1 to 11.
9. Respondents have not led any oral or
documentary evidence on their behalf.
10. Vide impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,27,531.70 Ps/- as detailed
below:
Heads Amount in
Rs.
Medical expenses 67,031.70
Attendant and ancillary charges 13,800
Future medical expenses 5,000
Pain and suffering 10,000
Loss of amenities and future 5,000
unhappiness
Loss of income during 26,700
treatment period
Loss of future income Nil
TOTAL 1,27,531.70
11. The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not
challenged the impugned judgment and award.
12. Thus petitioner has maintained this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation contending that due
to accidental injuries he has suffered disability and no
compensation is granted for future loss of income and the
compensation granted under other heads is also on the
lower side. Therefore it has become necessary to re-
examine the impugned judgment and award to ascertain
whether compensation granted is just and proper, if not,
whether it is a case for interference by this court.
13. Loss of future earning and future prospectus:
According to the petitioner he was a driver earning
Rs.8,000/- per month and on account of injuries suffered
now is unable to pursue the said avocation. Ex-P1 & 2 are
the medical certificates, according to which and coupled
with the evidence of the doctor i.e., PW-2, petitioner has
not sustained any permanent disability and in fact he has
deposed that petitioner is fit to drive heavy motor vehicle.
In view of the same, the Tribunal has refused to grant any
compensation under the head loss of future earnings and
loss of future prospects. I find no reason to interfere with
the same.
14. Pain and suffering: As per Ex-P1 & 2 the medical
certificates, though petitioner has suffered grievous injury,
he has not sustained any disability. Though petitioner has
claimed that he suffered 22% permanent partial disability of
the whole body, there is no evidence to establish the same.
Therefore, the Tribunal has granted compensation sum of
Rs.10,000/- under this head. However, having regard to
the fact that based on the documents the Tribunal has held
that petitioner was under treatment for three months, the
compensation granted under this head is on the lower side.
Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained,
treatment taken and the duration of treatment I hold that
granting additional sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head
would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the
compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-
as against Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
15. Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal
has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.26,700/- under
this head taking the income as Rs.8,000/- and period of
treatment as three months. However, petitioner has failed
to prove that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Since
the accident took place on 06.08.2008, as per the Lok
Adalath chart, which is based on minimum wages the
notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.4,500/-.
Therefore, I hold that compensation in a sum of
Rs.26,700/- granted by the Tribunal under this head is
reasonable and adequate and it calls for no interference.
16. Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.67,031.70 ps. and
therefore it requires no interference.
17. Attendant and Ancillary Charges: The Tribunal
has granted compensation of Rs.13,800/- under this head
at the rate of Rs.200/- per day for the period during which
petitioner was under treatment. It is reasonable and
adequate and calls for no interference.
18. Future medical expenses: In the absence of any
evidence with regard to petitioner having suffered any
disability, the grant of compensation sum of Rs.5,000/-
under this head is reasonable and adequate and calls for no
interference.
19. Loss of amenities of life: Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head.
Even though petitioner has not suffered any partial
permanent disability, having regard to the fact that he was
under treatment for about three months and spent
Rs.67,031.70 ps. for treatment, I hold that the
compensation under granted under this head is on the
lower side and granting additional sum of Rs.35,000/-
would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, compensation
under this head is increased to Rs.40,000/- as against
Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
20. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,92,531.70 Ps (rounded of to
Rs.1,92,550/-) as against Rs.1,27,531.70 Ps granted by the
Tribunal as detailed below:
Amount granted Amount granted
Heads by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs.Ps. In Rs.Ps
Medical expenses 67,031.70 Ps 67,031.70
Attendant and 13,800 13,800
ancilliary charges
Future medical 5,000 5,000
expenses
Pain and suffering 10,000 40,000
Loss of amenities and 5,000 40,000
future unhappiness
Loss of income during 26,700 26,700
treatment period
Loss of future income Nil Nil
TOTAL 1,27,531.70 1,92,531.70
Rounded of to -1,92,550/-
21. Of course petitioner is entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.1,92,550/- as against
Rs.1,27,531.70 ps. granted by the Tribunal, with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited)
(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
