Karnataka High Court
Sri M Muniraju vs Mr N Manjunath on 18 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.3139 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.978, 7TH CROSS,
16TH MAIN, E.W.S., BTM 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE- 560 076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.N. MANJUNATH,
S/O NANJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.124, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, B.CHANDRAPPA NAGAR,
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE- 560 030.
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONOTECH CHAMBER,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
2
V/O DATED 24.04.2018 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
08.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3422/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, AND XLI
ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
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-claimant and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2- Insurance Company.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 08.01.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.3422/2011
on the file of the learned XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge,
MACT AND XLI ACMM (SCCH-17) at Bengaluru ('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 factual matrix of the case of the claimant is
that on 28.01.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., an accident
occurred when the claimant/petitioner was proceeding on
his motorcycle along with his daughter, at that time,
another motorcycle came and dashed against the
claimant's motorcycle, as a result, he has sustained the
following injuries.
"Fracture of Left tibial condyle (Left leg) and Fracture
of patella (L) side".
5. The claimant in order to substantiate his case,
has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.13. He has also examined
the doctor as PW.2, who has assessed the disability at
20%. On the other hand, the respondent No.2- Insurance
Company has examined its official as RW.1 and got
marked the document at Ex.R.1.
6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,82,000/-. Hence, the present appeal
is filed questioning the quantum of compensation.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant before this Court is that the
Tribunal failed to take note of the nature of the injuries,
difficulties in leading life and also the disability has not
been taken into consideration. The Tribunal has not
awarded compensation on the head of loss of future
income, in spite of he having undergone surgery and the
same is not considered and the compensation awarded on
the other heads is very meager. Hence, it requires
interference of this Court.
8. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2- Insurance company would submit that
the liability is fastened on the insured since the policy is
obtained subsequent to the accident. In spite of notice
served on the owner of the offending vehicle, he did not
choose to either appear before the Court or engage any
counsel. Hence, it does not require any interference of this
Court.
9. Having heard the arguments of the respective
counsel and on perusal of the material available on record,
it is seen that the claimant had suffered fracture of tibial
condyle (L) tibia and fracture patella left side. He was
inpatient for a period of thirteen days i.e., from
29.01.2010 to 10.02.2010 as contended by the claimant.
The discharge summary also discloses that he was
inpatient for thirteen days as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P.5 wound
certificate also confirms the nature of fractures sustained
by him and that he was subjected to surgery.
10. The learned counsel would contend that as per
Ex.P.10, medical bills and prescriptions are produced, the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.90,000/- towards
medical expenses rejecting some of the bills which
appeared to be doubtful and some of the bills are
prescribed without signature of the doctor. Hence, I do not
find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding
compensation of a sum of Rs.90,000/- under the head of
'medical expenses'.
11. The Tribunal also considered the nature of
injuries and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under
the head of 'pain and sufferings'. Hence, I do not find any
error committed by the Tribunal in awarding compensation
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'pain and
sufferings'.
12. The Tribunal only awarded an amount of
Rs.12,000/- on the head of loss of earnings during laid-up
period. The accident has taken place in the year 2010 and
the Tribunal has taken income of Rs.4,000/- for a period of
three months. In the year 2010, the notional income
would be Rs.5,500/- per month and also he had suffered
two fractures of tibial condyle (L) tibia and fracture patella
left side and he has to lead rest of his life with the
disability of 20% to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to
have taken the loss of income for a period of four months,
at Rs.5,500/- p.m., which comes to Rs.22,000/-
(Rs.5,500X4).
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
on the head of 'conveyance, attendant and nourishment'
and he was inpatient for a period of thirteen days, which in
my opinion, is just and proper.
14. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and has not
awarded any compensation under the head of 'disability'
and committed an error in not considering the evidence of
PW.2-doctor, who had assessed the disability to the whole
body from left lower limb at 20%, he had suffered fracture
of tibial condyle (L) tibia; fracture patella left side and also
produced X-rays at Ex.P11 and case sheet at Ex.P12, but
the same is not considered. In the case of two fractures,
the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability to the
extent of 15%. Having considered the nature of injuries
and the age of the claimant which is 53 years as on the
date of the accident, it is appropriate to take the disability
of 15% to the whole body. Having considered the notional
income of Rs.5,500/- per month, the relevant multiplier to
be applied being '11', it comes to Rs.1,08,900/-
(5,500X12X15/100X11).
15. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of 'amenities in life and future
unhappiness', which is on the lesser side. Having
considered the age of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to
have considered the loss of amenities since the claimant
has to lead rest of his life with the said disability. Hence, it
is appropriate to enhance the compensation on the head of
'loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness' etc., to
Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
16. In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a
sum of Rs.3,10,900/- as against Rs.1,82,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
17. 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 08.01.2013 passed in
M.V.C.No.3422/2011 on the file of the learned
XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT AND
XLI ACMM (SCCH-17) at Bengaluru, is hereby
modified granting compensation of
Rs.3,10,900/- as against Rs.1,82,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
iii. The respondent No.1/Insured (owner) is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount within six weeks from today.
iv. The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SKS
