Karnataka High Court
M C Maruthi vs M V Subramanya on 10 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7343/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M.C.MARUTHI
S/O LATE CHINNEGOWDA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O PETE, VOKKALAGERI
MALAVALLI TOWN-571 428 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.V. SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE M.V. VENKATAPPA
PROP: SURMS, PETE
MALAVALLI TOWN-571 428
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1576, 1ST FLOOR, V.V.ROAD
MANDYA-571 436. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2016,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.03.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1869/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
2
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 06.03.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.1869/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT.,
at Malavalli, ('the Tribunal' for short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The claimant in this appeal questioning the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Wound Certificate
- Ex.P3 discloses that he had sustained three injuries. Injury
No.3 is grievous in nature and injury Nos.1 and 2, are simple in
nature. On perusal of the material available on record, it
discloses that he has sustained the head injury and he was an
inpatient for a period of 14 days, the Tribunal has committed an
error in awarding only an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of
pain and suffering. Hence, it is appropriate to enhance the same
to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,10,218/- towards medical expenses, which is based on
the documentary evidence. Hence, it does not require any
interference.
6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/- on the head of future medical expenses, which is
just and reasonable; the same does not require any interference.
7. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of permanent
disability and no compensation is awarded in respect of loss of
income during the laid-up period and only awarded an amount of
Rs.1,400/- on the head of food, diet and other incidental
expenses. The Doctor has not been examined before the
Tribunal. However, the disability certificate is marked as Ex.P12.
The author of the document - Ex.P12 has not been examined
except marking of the same. Merely because of marking of the
disability certificate, the Court cannot assess the disability.
However, the Court can take note of the nature of injuries
sustained by him. On perusal of the Wound Certificate, which is
marked as Ex.P3, reveals that there was an abrasion over left
side forehead and face, haematoma over left side scalp and head
injury - Sub Arachnoid haemorrhage and contusion in right
parietal lobe of brain. Injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature
and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. On perusal of Ex.P12, it
reveals that he was admitted to the hospital on 06.10.2012 and
discharged on 19.10.2012. In the Disability Certificate, it is
diagnosis as 'Sub Arachnoid haemorrhage' and he was treated
for head injury. It is mentioned that he was treated earlier at
Government Hospital, Malavalli, Vikram Hospital, Mandya and
Mysuru and only examined him for assessment of disability and
the same has not been proved. When the same has not been
proved and also relied upon the Bengaluru Hospital Disability
Certificate, wherein also, he has mentioned that the physical
disability for left eye is 50%, there is slight loss of memory and
the Ophthalmologist also has not been examined. But he
assessed the whole body disability at 30% and the same has not
been substantiated. However, taking into note of the nature of
injury i.e., head injury, diagnosed as 'Sub Arachnoid
haemorrhage', it is appropriate to take note of the same to
award the compensation on the head of loss of amenities. The
Tribunal also taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 in the
cross-examination that now he is doing business and earlier he
was Conductor. Hence, the question of awarding future loss of
income does not arise.
8. Having taken note of the nature of injuries, it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the head of
'loss of amenities'.
9. The Tribunal also committed an error in only
awarding an amount of Rs.1,400/- on the head of food, diet and
other incidental charges, when he was an inpatient for a period
of 14 days and it was an accident of the year 2012. Hence, it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of
food, diet and other incidental charges.
10. In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of
Rs.2,25,218/- as against Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 06.03.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.1869/2012 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,25,218/- as against
Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iii) The respondent - Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation amount with
interest within six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
