Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraj vs Smt. Padmamma on 12 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.897/2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJ
S/O. SRI VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O. KRISHNA MURTHY,
NO.14, 3RD MAIN,
GANESHA TEMPLE STREET,
KAMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 004. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.RAMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O. NAGARAJ,
NO.39, PATALAMA TEMPLE STREET,
CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2. SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, II FLOOR,
MANARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K.VENKATARAMANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2011
PASSED IN MVC NO.6615/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, 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 for the appellant learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 04.11.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.6615/2009 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Additional Small
Causes Judge, 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
31.07.2009 at about 7.00 a.m., he met with an accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of a tempo in which he
was traveling and dashed against a tamarind tree. Hence, he
sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Chintamani and thereafter, he was shifted
to Sai Baba Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as
inpatient from 31.07.2009 to 31.08.2009.
5. In support of his claim, he examined himself as
P.W.1 and a witness as P.W.2. He also examined the Doctor as
P.W.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the
other hand, the respondent No.2 examined its legal officer as
R.W.1 and got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1.
6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, awarded compensation
of Rs.4,09,000/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging
the quantum of compensation.
7. It is contended by the claimant in the appeal that the
Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of
Rs.55,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and also
committed an error in taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per
month. It is also his contention that only a meager sum of
Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards loss of future earning capacity
and a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.
Hence, the compensation awarded is very meager and prayed
this Court to enhance the compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that the Tribunal considering the material available
on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation
exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company and it does
not require any interference of this Court.
9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal has
discussed in detail while answering issue No.2 regarding the
nature of injuries i.e., head injuries suffered and also taken note
of the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of one
month in the hospital and considering the document at Ex.P7-
wound certificate, awarded an amount of Rs.55,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering and it does not require any
interference and the same is just and reasonable.
10. The Tribunal, considering the medical expenses
incurred to the extent of Rs.2,44,789/- added another
Rs.10,000/- for food and conveyance during the period of
treatment as inpatient and also for follow up treatment and
awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- in all and the same does
not require any interference.
11. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per
month. It is the accident of the year 2009 and in the absence of
documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Doctor, who treated the
claimant assessed the disability at 12% and the same has been
accepted by the Tribunal and awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/-
towards loss of future earning capacity and the same requires to
be revisited. Since, the claimant is aged about 40 years, the
multiplier '15' would be applicable and taking the income at
Rs.5,000/- per month and the disability at 12%, the loss of
future earning capacity comes to Rs.1,08,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 15
x 12/100) as against Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on
the head of loss of amenities and the same is just and
reasonable, since the injured is having 12% disability.
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- on
the head of loss of income during treatment period taking the
income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Since, the injured claimant
was inpatient for a period of one month and also sustained head
injury, the Tribunal ought to have taken the laid up period as 4
months and if the same is taken, considering the income at
Rs.5,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.20,000/- as against
Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
14. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards
food and nourishment and conveyance during the period of
treatment while awarding compensation towards medical
expenses. Having taken note that the accident is of the year
2009 and considering the fact that he was inpatient for a period
of one month, it is appropriate to award additional Rs.5,000/- as
against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, in all, the
claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,73,000/- as against
Rs.4,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
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 04.11.2011 passed in
M.V.C.No.6615/2009, is modified granting
compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- as against
Rs.4,09,000/- 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.
(v) In all other respects, the order of the Tribunal
remains undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
