Karnataka High Court
Sri M M Shivakumar @ Kumar vs Sri. Lokesh on 16 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7140/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.M.SHIVAKUMAR @ KUMAR
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PLUMBER
R/AT. MUNIREDDIHALLI
GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE [THROUGH VC])
AND:
1. SRI. LOKESH
S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA
R/AT. DODDANANCHARLU VILLAGE
GUDIBANDE TALUK, THIRUMANI POST
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
2. THE LMANAGER
ICICI LOMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
No.89, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 068. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [THROUGH VC];
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2021,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.3116/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL.
SCJ AND XIX ACMM MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 27.06.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.3116/2016 on the
file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT., at
Bengaluru (SCCH-23) ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the
quantum of compensation.
4. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
5. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he was working as plumber, met with an
accident and sustained the permanent disability.
6. In order to substantiate his contention, he examined
himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2, who
assessed the disability of 38% to the left lower limb and 19% to
the whole body. The Tribunal accepted the same and awarded
compensation of Rs.5,01,414/-. Hence, the present appeal is
filed.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/claimant before this Court is that the
compensation awarded is very meager, particularly, the
compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded on the head of pain and
suffering, and the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, the learned counsel would contend that
the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded on the head of
Conveyance, nourishment, nutritious food and loss of amenities
and an amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded on the head of loss of
happiness, frustration, inconvenience and discomfort, are very
meager. The learned counsel also would contend that no
compensation was awarded on the head of loss of income during
the laid-up period. Hence, it requires an interference of this
Court.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company would submit that he was an
inpatient only for a period of 14 days. In spite of it, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- on the head of
Conveyance, nourishment, nutritious food. The learned counsel
also would submit that the disability of 50% is taken. The
Tribunal ought to have taken 1/3rd, if it is taken 1/3rd, it comes
only 13% disability. The compensation awarded on all the heads
are on higher side. Hence, it does not require any interference
of this Court. However, the learned counsel fairly admits that no
compensation is awarded on the head of loss of income during
the laid-up period.
9. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, the injuries sustained by him
is Type 1 open shaft femur fracture of left leg and head injury.
Having taken note of the fact that he was an inpatient for a
period of 14 days and subjected to surgery, it is appropriate to
award compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the head of pain and
suffering as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.22,054/- towards medical expenses, which is based on the
documentary evidence. Hence, it does not require any
interference.
11. The compensation awarded on the head of loss of
future earnings is concerned, considered 50% of disability i.e.,
19% (38%/2) and awarded the just and reasonable
compensation and no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
questioning the same. Hence, the same is retained.
12. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded on
the head of Conveyance, nourishment, nutritious food and loss
of amenities, the same is just and reasonable and does not
require any interference.
13. Regarding loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- is awarded
and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards future medical expenses.
The Tribunal taken note of all these factors into consideration
and awarded the just and reasonable compensation.
14. However, the Tribunal committed an error in not
awarding the compensation on the head of loss of income during
the laid-up period. Having considered the nature of injury viz.,
Type 1 open shaft femur fracture of left leg and head injury, it
requires minimum four months time for uniting of fracture and
for rest. Having considered the income of Rs.9,000/- per month
for a period of four months, it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
15. 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 27.06.2017 passed in
M.V.C.No.3116/2016 is modified granting the
additional compensation of Rs.46,000/- in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its deposit.
(iii) The respondent - Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation amount with
interest within six weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
