Karnataka High Court
Vimala @ Hemalatha vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa 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.8992/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VIMALA @ HEMALATHA
W/O. NAGAPPA @ DODDANAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O. GONUR VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.M.J.SOMASHEKHARAPPA
S/O M.M.J.CHANNABASAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
OWNER OF TVS XL BEARING
REG.NO.KA-35-EC-4139
R/O. RENUKA EXTENSION
KOTTUR, KUDLIGI TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT.
2. BRANCH MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX
OPP. KSRTC., BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.GOVINDARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [THROUGH VC];
R1 SERVED)
2
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.1383/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITINAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, 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 21.04.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.1383/2016 on the
file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, at
Chitradurga ('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 on account of the accident she has sustained
the fracture of pubic rami. She was an inpatient for a period of 5
days from 29.06.2016 to 02.07.2016 and spent an amount of
Rs.1 Lakh towards medical expenses. However, only produced
the document of Ex.P16(1 to 10), which discloses that she has
incurred Rs.12,605/- towards medical expenses.
6. The Tribunal taking into note of the evidence of the
Doctor assessed the disability of 11.67% i.e., 1/3rd of 35%.
Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in
taking the disability. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of
Rs.1 Lakh on the head of pain and sufferings and the same is
exorbitant. Taking into note of only one fracture of pubic rami, it
would have been Rs.50,000/- and an excess amount of
Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. However, the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of
medical and incidental expenses, though the medical bills for a
sum of Rs.12,605/- are produced.
7. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, though she is an
inpatient only for a period of 5 days, the same is just and
reasonable and does not require any interference.
8. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- on
the head of loss of income during the laid up period for a period
of one month. When the claimant has suffered the fracture of
pubic rami, it requires minimum three months time for uniting
and for rest. Hence, taking the notional income of Rs.9,500/- for
a period of three months, it comes to Rs.28,500/- as against
Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal also awarded compensation on the head
of permanent disability by taking the income of Rs.8,000/- with
11.67% disability. Hence, the same has to be re-visited by
taking the income of Rs.9,500/- per month with 11.67%
disability and the relevant multiplier 16, it comes to
Rs.2,12,860/- (9500x12x16x11.67%).
10. The Tribunal also not awarded any compensation on
the head of loss of amenities. Having considered the age of the
injured i.e., 35 years, she has to lead rest of her life with the
disability of 11.67%. Hence, it is appropriate to award an
amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of the loss of amenities.
11. In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,46,360/- as against Rs.3,12,251/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. 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 21.04.2017 passed in
M.V.C.No.1383/2016 is modified granting the
additional compensation of Rs.34,109/- in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at 8% 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*
