Karnataka High Court
D L Girisha vs Pyarejan on 12 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
MFA No. 8564 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8564 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
D L GIRISHA
S/O LOKESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT DUGLAPURA VILLAGE AT PO,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. HARISH FOR
SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. PYAREJAN,
S/O SHARIEF JAN,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER AND OWNER
R/AT BALLARY CAMP, BIRUR TOWN,
KADUR TALUK,
Digitally signed CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548.
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA M.G. PALACE, GOPI CIRCLE,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
( SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.95/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
KADUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
MFA No. 8564 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Harish N.R., Advocate, who represent Sri
Srikanth Patil.K., learned counsel on record by the
appellant. Also heard Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel who
represents respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1
was dispensed with.
2. Aggrieved by the quantum that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kadur, Chikmagalur District through orders in MVC No.
95/2010 dated 17.04.2013 the present appeal is
preferred.
3. Making his submission with regard to the merits
of the matter learned counsel for the appellant states that
the appellant sustained two grievous injuries due to the
accident and became permanently disabled. Learned
counsel submits that the appellant was working as an
agriculturist and was eking out his livelihood but due to
disability i.e., due to lost of vision he is unable to attend
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
any work. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal
failed to consider the aspect of disability though sufficient
evidence was produced and awarded a meagre sum of
compensation and hence, the amount is required to be
increased. Learned counsel also submits that the evidence
of CW.1 and CW.2 was not considered by the Tribunal and
thereby has come to the wrong finding with regard to the
amount which the appellant is entitled to.
4. The submission of learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 on the other hand is that, the appellant
did not produce any evidence to establish that he was an
agriculturist by profession. Learned counsel also states
that the aspect of disability was not established before the
Tribunal. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 79,337/- as compensation which is
highly justifiable and therefore, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal needs no interference.
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
5. As per the contents of Ex.P.7-wound certificate,
the appellant sustained an injury over right eye more
particularly, optic nerve injury and also fracture of
Zygomatic, right Maxilla, which are grievous in nature. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
CW.1-Dr.Yogesh Kamath spoke with regard to the visual
disability of the appellant. That the right eye had vision
less that 6/60 and better left eye had 6/6 normal vision,
therefore, he assessed the disability of 30% to both eyes.
He also mentioned that the left eye had normal vision. On
what basis the witness i.e., CW1 came to a conclusion that
the disability regarding both eyes is 30% is not clarified.
However, there is no denial of the fact that the appellant
sustained two grievous injuries to the vital organs of body.
6. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
under the head 'Pain and Sufferings', Rs.38,037/- towards
'Medical Expenses', Rs.1,300/- for 'Attendant and
nutritious food', Rs.2,000/- towards conveyance charges,
Rs.3,000/- towards 'Loss of income during the period of
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
treatment', Rs.10,000/- towards Discomfort and loss of
amenities of life'. In total, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.79,337/- as compensation.
7. The accident occurred in the year 2010. As per
the version of the appellant he was an agriculturist by
profession and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
However, no document is produced by the appellant to
show that he holds any agricultural lands. Therefore the
nominal income of the appellant is taken as Rs.5,500/- per
month. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained
by the appellant, he would have taken bed rest atleast for
a period of two months. Therefore, the loss of income
comes to Rs.11,000/-.
8. Further more, there would be discomfort in
certainty due to the disability in attending either
agricultural activities or normal duties. Therefore, this
Court considers desirable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-
as compensation for discomfort in life which the appellant
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
suffers due to disability. .Also this Court is of the view
that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads requires certain enhancement. Having
regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the
appellant, he is entitled to an enhanced compensation
under following heads.
Pain and suffering for two grievous Rs. 40,000=00
injuries at the rate of Rs.20,000/-
each
Medical expenses Rs. 38,037=00
Extra nourishment, diet and Rs. 2,500=00
attendant charges
Conveyance Charges Rs. 3,000=00
Loss of income during laid up Rs. 11,000=00
period
Loss of amenities in life due to the Rs. 25,000=00
grievous injuries to the vital organs
Compensation for the discomfort Rs. 50,000=00
which the appellant suffers due to
defective vision
Total Rs.1,69,537=00
In the result, the following order is passed
NC: 2023:KHC:45169
ORDER
a) This appeal is allowed in part.
b) The compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kadur ,through orders in MVC No. 95/2010
dated 17.04.2013 is enhanced from Rs.79,337/- to
Rs.1,69,537/-.
c) 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
PSJ
