Sri Ismail S vs Sri Renukappa L
2022 Latest Caselaw 13068 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13068 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ismail S vs Sri Renukappa L 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.6133/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI ISMAIL S,
S/O SULEMAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT THAGACHAGUPPE VILLAGE,
KUMBALAGODU POST, KENGERI,
BANGALORE-560060.
                                                ...APPELLANT

        (BY SRI NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI RENUKAPPA L,
       S/O LATE KUNGANNA,
       R/AT KOMAGATTA VILLAGE,
       SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
       BANGALORE-560060.

2.     NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       REGIONAL OFFICE,
       NO.144, M.G.ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560001.
       REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

           (BY SRI K. SRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
                VIDE ORDER DATED 22.01.2015,
              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 07.08.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.7700/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, BANGALORE, 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 for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 07.08.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.7700/2012, on the

file of the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member,

MACT, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).

4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that he had suffered fracture of trochlea left

elbow joint and the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2

assessed the disability of 35% to upper left limb and 12% to the

whole body. He was an inpatient for a period of three days and

he was treated conservatively. The Tribunal after considering

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record awarded

compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- and hence the present appeal is

filed before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the Tribunal has taken the income of only

Rs.6,000/- per month and ought to have taken the notional

income of Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal committed an

error in not taking the disability. The Tribunal awarded only an

amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head disability and the

compensation awarded for laid up period is very meagre and

hence it requires interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that he has suffered only one fracture and other injuries

are simple in nature and the Tribunal rightly not taken the

disability and hence it does not require interference of this Court

and just and reasonable compensation has been awarded.

7. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the documents

discloses the fracture of trochlea left elbow joint and the doctor

assessed the disability of 35%, but he was not subjected to any

surgery and he was treated conservatively. The Tribunal

committed an error in not taking the disability and though the

doctor assessed the disability of 12%, the same is on the higher

side. Taking note of the fracture of trochlea left elbow joint, it is

appropriate to consider the disability of 8%.

8. The Tribunal awarded just and reasonable

compensation of Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and suffering

and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

9. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-

under the head medical expenses and the same is based on

documentary evidence and hence it does not require interference

of this Court.

10. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.25,000/- under the heads

nourishment, conveyance and loss of amenities, respectively and

the same is just and reasonable.

11. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/-

under the head loss of income during the period of treatment

taking the income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant had

suffered fracture of trochlea left elbow joint and it requires

minimum three months for uniting of fracture and for rest.

Taking the notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month, the loss of

income during the period of treatment comes to Rs.21,000/-

(Rs.7,000/- x 3).

12. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding an

amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head disability. This Court has

re-assessed the disability of 8%. Taking the income of

Rs.7,000/- per month and disability of 8% and applying the

relevant multiplier of '15', the loss of future income comes to

Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 15 x 8%) as against

Rs.25,000/-.

13. In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.2,36,800/- as against Rs.1,52,000/-.

14. 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     07.08.2014,     passed      in
             M.V.C.No.7700/2012,       is   modified   granting