Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivasa Shanti vs Sri Chetan Kumar on 17 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7048/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA SHANTI,
S/O LATE SRI RAMA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LACHIL HOUSE,
KULAI, MANGALORE-574 104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHETAN KUMAR,
S/O SRI SHEENA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT SRINIDHI KANNANGARU,
NEAR GARODI, NADSAL VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK-574 101.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SRINIVAS COMPLEX,
ANANTHA SHAYAN ROAD,
BRANCH KARKALA,
UDUPI DIST - 574 101.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED )
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.8.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1794/2012 ON THE FILE OF 1ST
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-6, MANGALORE, D.K.,
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 12.08.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1794/2012, on the
file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT-VI, Mangalore,
D.K. ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the quantum of
compensation.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 16.07.2012, as a
result, he had sustained sub-trochantric femoral fracture and he
was subjected to surgery and was under conservative treatment.
The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head
pain and suffering and considered the medical bills only to the
tune of Rs.71,967/- as against Rs.91,967/- and also awarded an
amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head incidental charges though
he was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. An amount of
Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the head loss of amenities and
no disability is considered. The Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of income during the laid up
period and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the
head future medical expenses. Hence, the present appeal is
filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the compensation awarded under all
the heads are very meager and hence it requires interference of
this Court.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that the claimant has continued the job and hence the Tribunal
has rightly not considered the future loss of income. However,
under all other heads just and reasonable compensation is
awarded.
7. Having considered the nature of injuries i.e., sub-
trochantric femoral fracture and he was an inpatient for a period
of 14 days, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding just
and reasonable compensation under the head pain and suffering
and hence the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and suffering as the accident
was occurred in 2012.
8. The Tribunal considered the medical bills to the tune
of Rs.91,967/- including the inpatient bill and the doctor
charges and hence it does not require interference of this Court.
9. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
under the head incidental charges like food, conveyance,
nourishment and attendant charges and he was an inpatient for
a period of 14 days and hence the same is just and reasonable
and does not require interference of this Court.
10. The claimant is aged about 52 years and the doctor
assessed the disability of 12%. When he continued the job, only
amenities ought to have been considered and an amount of
Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head loss of amenities is meager
and hence the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
11. The question of awarding any amount under the
head future loss of income does not arise as he continued the
job and the Tribunal rightly rejected the same.
12. The Tribunal while awarding compensation under the
head loss of income during the laid up period awarded an
amount of Rs.10,000/- considering the laid up period as one
month. When he has sustained fracture of femur bone, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of income for a period
of three months, hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of
Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of income during the laid up
period as against Rs.10,000/-.
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
under the head future medical expenses and the doctor in terms
of the certificate has stated that it requires Rs.25,000/-. Having
considered that it was an accident of the year 2012, it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- as against
Rs.10,000/- under the head future medical expenses.
14. In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,11,967/- as against Rs.1,31,967/-.
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 12.08.2014, passed in
M.V.C.No.1794/2012, is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,11,967/- as against
Rs.1,31,967/- 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
MD
