Karnataka High Court
Mr Chethana B M vs Ranganatha K on 11 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44978
MFA No. 7282 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7282 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. CHETHANA B M,
S/O MAHALINGAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
PERMANENT ADDRESS IS
BALAMADIHALLI, KUNIKENAHALLI POST,
TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 212,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NELAGADARANHALLI, SHIVAPURA MAIN ROAD,
JMC AUTO STAND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR K.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH 1. RANGANATHA K,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O KRISHNAPPA,
C/O MAGANAPPA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OPPOSITE TO POLICE STATION,
MADANAYAKANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 562 123.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO. 28,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44978
MFA No. 7282 of 2016
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S THE MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. NAGAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4128/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard, Sri. Naveen Kumar. K. N., learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Sri. H. S. Lingaraj, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2. Though Sri. V.
Nagareddy is on record representing respondent No.1,
learned counsel failed to make his appearance and submit
his contentions.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru
in MVC.No.4128/2014, dated 02.11.2015. This is a
claimants appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:44978
3. The only point that is argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that, the appellant due to the
injuries sustained could not attend his duties for a period
of fifteen months. However, the Tribunal has awarded loss
of earnings only for a period of five months and therefore,
loss of earnings has to be awarded for fifteen months.
4. The submission made by learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 is that having considered
the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded just
amount of compensation and therefore, the award of the
Tribunal needs no interference.
5. Taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1
and 2, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.21, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of
pain and suffering, Rs.20,000 towards medical expenses,
Rs.20,000/- towards travelling, conveyance, food,
nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental
expenses, Rs.68,000/- for loss of income for a period of
five months at the rate of 13,600/-per month and
NC: 2023:KHC:44978
Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and marriage
prospects. The Tribunal in all awarded a sum of
Rs.2,33,000/- as compensation.
6. As earlier stated, the grievance of the appellant is
that though treatment was taken for a long period and
could not attend duties for a period of fifteen months, loss
of income was calculated only for a period of five months.
7. As per the contents of Ex.P.2-wound certificate,
the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg
which is grievous in nature and a small cut over the cheek
which is simple in nature. As per the evidence of PW.2,
the appellant was operated on 21.05.2014 by fixing
fracture with LCP-plates and screws and he was
discharged on the same day. Again he was admitted on
12.08.2014, bone grafting was done and he was
discharged on 16.08.2014. He was again admitted on
19.02.2015 for broken implants and a non-union of
fracture and he was again operated and was discharged
from 03.03.2015. He was on subsequent follow up
NC: 2023:KHC:44978
treatment. Thus having regard to the injuries sustained
and the operations conducted, this Court is of the view
that the appellant would not have attended his normal
duties at least for a period of eight months. Thus the loss
of earnings comes to Rs.1,08,800/-. Thus, the extent of
increase under the head of loss of earnings during the laid
up period is Rs.40,800/-. Except that, this Court does not
find any other grounds of interference for enhancement of
compensation.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in-part. The
compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced by
Rs.40,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry same
interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the
Tribunal in all other aspects holds good.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PHM
CT: BHK
