Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harish Gatti K. S vs Sri. Mohammed Ashraf Basara 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.2290/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI HARISH GATTI K.S.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. SHEKAR GATTI,
R/AT GANDHI NAGAR,
KOTESHWARA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MOHAMMED ASHRAF BASARA,
MAJOR,
R/O MISRIYA COTTAGE,
NARINGANA POST,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-575 018.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KUNDAPURA BRANCH,
PUSHPA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,
KUNDAPURA-576 201.
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2017,
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 14.12.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.999/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA,
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 14.12.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.999/2015, on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT,
Kundapura ('the Tribunal' for short).
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant is that
he met with an accident on 23.07.2015 and as a result, he had
suffered the fracture of humerus. He was an inpatient for a
period of nine days and the doctor assessed the disability of 20%
to his left lower limb and the Tribunal considered 13% disability,
which is on the little higher side. The Tribunal has considered
the income of Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per
month. Having taken note of the disability taken is on the
higher side, it does not require any interference of this Court
with regard to loss of earning during the laid up period since the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,87,200/- under the
head disability and an amount of Rs.48,000/- under the head
loss of earning during the laid up period.
5. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-
under the head pain and suffering and the same is just and
reasonable and does not require interference of this Court.
6. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.77,940/-
under the head medical expenses, food and nourishment,
attendant and conveyance charges and the same does not
require interference of this Court.
7. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-
under the head loss of amenities. The claimant is aged about 39
years and he has to lead rest of his life with disability. Hence,
under the head of loss of amenities, he is entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
8. The Tribunal under the head future medical expenses
awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the same does not
require interference of this Court.
9. In all, the claimant is entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
10. 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 14.12.2016, passed in
M.V.C.No.999/2015, is modified granting
additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
