Karnataka High Court
Kumar vs Balakrishna Rao B.K on 23 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.9144/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR
S/O. YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
BUSINESS, R/O. KORACHARA HATTI,
INDRANAGARA, BETHUR ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALAKRISHNA RAO B.K.
S/O. KADOJI RAO B.N.
OWNER OF MAHADEVA BUS BEARING
REG NO.KA-04/A-5896
R/O. NO.55, 6TH CROSS, 'A' BLOCK,
DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
BELLAD AND COMPANY,
BANNIGIDADA STOP,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.C.VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017,
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 07.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.573/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & VII MACT, DAVANGERE,
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 for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 07.09.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.573/2013 on the file of
the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and VII MACT, Davangere
('the Tribunal' for short)
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 07.11.2012. As
a result, he has sustained injury of left shoulder dislocation and
he was subjected to surgery at C.G. Hospital, Davanagere and
he was inpatient for a period of 15 days from 07.11.2012 to
21.11.2012.
4. In support of his claim, he examined the Doctor as
P.W.2, who assessed the disability at 35% to particular limb and
the Tribunal has taken the disability at 8% and awarded
compensation of Rs.1,43,900/-.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding meager
compensation on all the heads. Hence, it require interference of
this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has taken
note of the nature of injuries which is mentioned in the wound
certificate and he has sustained injury of left shoulder dislocation
and the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- per month
in the absence of documentary evidence. Hence, it does not
require any interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, particularly the
document at Ex.P6-wound certificate, it discloses that the
claimant has sustained injury of left shoulder dislocation and he
was subjected to open reduction internal fixation and he was
inpatient for a period of 15 days. When he had suffered injury of
left shoulder dislocation and was subjected for open reduction
internal fixation and he was inpatient for a period 15 days, the
compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the head of
pain and suffering is very meager and the same is enhanced to
Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- on the head of
medical expenses based on the documentary evidence and the
same does not require any interference.
9. However, the Tribunal committed an error in
considering loss of income during laid up period and rest. When
the claimant was inpatient for a period of 15 days and he was
subjected to surgery, the Tribunal ought to have taken loss of
income for a period of four months and only as sum of
Rs.7,500/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up
period. Hence, taking the income at Rs.7,000/- per month for a
period of four months, a sum of Rs.28,000/- is awarded as
against Rs.7,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- on the head of
food, nourishment and attendant charges and the claimant was
inpatient for a period of 15 days. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/-
is awarded as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.86,400/-
towards future loss of income taking the disability at 8% and the
Doctor has assessed the disability at 35%. The injuries
sustained by the claimant is dislocation of left shoulder and
surgery was conducted for open reduction internal fixation.
Hence, the disability is taken at 10% instead of 8% as taken by
the Tribunal. Having considered the income at Rs.7,000/- per
month, disability at 10% and the relevant multiplier of '18'
considering the age of the claimant as 23 years, a sum of
Rs.1,51,200/- is awarded as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- on the head of loss
of amenities and considering the fact that the claimant is aged
about 23 years and he has to lead rest of his life with the
disability of 10%, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- as
against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, in all, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,74,200/- as against
Rs.1,43,900/- awarded by the Tribunal.
13. 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 07.09.2015 passed in
M.V.C.No.573/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,74,200/- as against
Rs.1,43,900/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The 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
ST
