Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Sangappa Sulibhavi vs The Nwkrtc on 13 September, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            -1-




                                     MFA No. 23361 of 2013


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23361 OF 2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA,
S/O SANGAPPA SULIBHAVI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: MASON,
R/O : BENAKATTI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
                                                ...APPELLANT

               (BY SRI D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE NWKRTC,
      GOKUL ROAD HUBLI.
      SUMMONS MAY BE SERVED THROUGH
      THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
      NWKRTC, NAVANAGAR,
      BAGALKOT.

2.    SABANNA,
      S/O SOMANATH KALAL,
      AGE : MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
      REG NO.KA25/M/6736)
      R/O : GODKE PLOT OLD HUBLI.

3.    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      V.A. KALABURGI SQUARE,
                                 -2-




                                         MFA No. 23361 of 2013


    DESAI CROSS,
    DESHPANDE NAGAR,
    HUBLI- 580 029.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
           SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3,
              NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2012
PASSED IN MVC No.532/2010 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT
NO.IV, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENRT OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 29.11.2012, passed in

M.V.C.No.532/2010, on the file of the Member, MACT No.IV,

Bagalkot ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the Tribunal is that he was traveling in Cruiser on

09.11.2009 and a lorry driven by its driver in a rash and

MFA No. 23361 of 2013

negligent manner came in high speed and at the same time, a

bus was also coming in a rash and negligent manner in high

speed so as to endanger human life in opposite direction and

dashed to the lorry ahead of cruiser of the claimant and then

dashed to Cruiser in which the claimant was traveling. As a

result, he has sustained cervical injury and he was an inpatient

for a period of 55 days, which has resulted in 70% of whole

body disability in terms of evidence of P.W.2. However, the

tribunal has taken only 10% disability and hence, the

compensation awarded under all heads are very meager and

hence, it requires interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would vehemently contend that, the disability

assessed by the Doctor at 70% is erroneous and no reasons are

assigned and what are the difficulties are also not stated and

the disability assessed by the Doctor is also not substantiated

and hence, it does not requires interference.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material, the injured is aged about 34 years as

on the date of the accident and immediately he was taken to

MFA No. 23361 of 2013

hospital and thereafter he was also shifted to Kerudi Hospital,

Bagalkot and he had suffered grievous injuries to the spinal

cord, fracture of two spine minimal and grievous injuries to

both knees. He was admitted to the Government Hospital,

Bagalkot and later to Kerudi Hospital and thereafter he was

referred to the Kulkarni Hospital, Miraj and he was treated as

an inpatient for a period of 55 days i.e. from 09.11.2011 to

08.01.2012 and CT scan also shows cervical spine shows

minimal displaced fracture involving left C-6 lamina. CT scan of

the brain shows no evidence of cervical fracture or intracranial

hemorrhage. Hence, the tribunal comes to the conclusion that,

it is clear that petitioner had sustained two simple injuries on

both knees and one grievous injury i.e. fracture of left C-6

faramostrojverroricus. Petitioner also produced Ex.P.6 Hospital

Bill and having taken note of the nature of the injuries and the

disability assessed by the Doctor awarded only an amount of

Rs.15,000/- and no doubt it was an accident of the year 2009,

but when he had suffered the fracture of spinal cord and he

was an inpatient for a period of 55 days, the amount awarded

is very meager and hence, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

under the head of pain and suffering. The tribunal also awarded

MFA No. 23361 of 2013

compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income

during treatment period. It was the accident of the year 2009

and having considered he was an inpatient almost for a period

of two months, the tribunal committed an error in awarding

only Rs.15,000/- by taking the income as Rs.3,000/- per month

and the accident is of the year 2009 and the notional income

would be Rs.5,000/- and hence, taking into the same, awarded

an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of income

during the laid up period for a period of five months. The

tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,800/- under the head

of attendant charges and also awarded an amount of

Rs.5,000/- under the head of conveyance charges and

Rs.5,000/- under the head of mental agony and shock. When

he was an inpatient for a period of 55 days, it is appropriate to

enhance the same to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.10,800/-. The

tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of

mental agony and shock and when the Doctor assessed the

disability of 70% to whole body, but no difficulties are

mentioned in the evidence of the Doctor and also given

disability certificate in terms of Ex.P.16, wherein also except

mentioning that he assessed 70% disability seconds to cervical,

MFA No. 23361 of 2013

the difficulties are not stated in the disability certificate also

and as well as in his evidence and hence, the assessment of

disability to 70% is exorbitant, however, taking into note of

cervical injuries and two fractures the disability taken by the

tribunal is 10% is very less and ought to have taken 20% of

the disability having considered the nature of cervical injuries

that too, in respect of C-6 and hence, disability of 20% is re-

assessed as against 10% of the tribunal order. Having

considered the disability of 20% and taking income of

Rs.5,000/- and he is aged about 34 years at the time of the

accident and the relevant multiplier would be '16'. Having

considered Rs.5,000/-X12X20%X16, it comes to Rs.1,92,000/-,

under the head of loss of future income. The tribunal only

awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of mental

agony and shock and no compensation is awarded under the

head of loss of amenities. He is aged about 34 years and he

has to lead his rest of life with the disability of 20% and hence,

it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the

head of loss of amenities. The Doctor also in his evidence, he

says that, he needs future treatment and it costs about

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and no compensation is awarded

MFA No. 23361 of 2013

under t he head of future treatment and hence, it is appropriate

to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future

medical expenses.

6. The Tribunal also taken note of the medical

expenses based on the medical bills and considered

Rs.1,30,612/- and the same is based on the documentary

evidence and hence, Rs.1,30,612/- awarded by the tribunal is

retained and it does not requires any interference. In all the

claimant is entitle for an amount of Rs.3,52,612/-.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed in MVC No.532/2010 by the Member MACT No.IV, Bagalkot is modified. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,52,612/- with 6% interest.