Karnataka High Court
R H Poojari vs Lokesh V on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
MFA No. 2374 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 2373 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2374 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2373 OF 2018 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 2374/2018
BETWEEN:
ARJUN KANAPURA @ A P CHELOJI,
S/O LATE PARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RETIRED VISL EMPLOYEE,
R/O. HOUSE NO. 186/A,
HUDCO COLONY, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H. R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location:
1. LOKESH V,
HIGH COURT S/O. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AT SPCPL STEEL FACTORY,
MACHENAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 79/A,
KALANAKATTE VILLAGE,
BADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 302.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BH ROAD, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
MFA No. 2374 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 2373 of 2018
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/12/2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.173/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT-12, BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 2373/2018
BETWEEN:
R H POOJARI,
S/O LATE HUTCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
SRI HALASIDDESHWARA NILAYA,
PLOT NO.104, SRI RAM COLONY,
2ND STAGE, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR,
BELGAUM, TILAKWADI,
HUKKERI, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA - 590 006.
(PRESENT RESIDING AT)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LOKESH. V,
S/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AT SPCPL STEEL FACTORY,
MACHENAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 302.
R/O HOUSE NO. 79/A,
KALANAKATTE VILLAGE,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
MFA No. 2374 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 2373 of 2018
BADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 302.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
B H ROAD, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, PREMA COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, B H ROAD,
BADRAVATHI - 577 301,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.22 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/12/2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.174/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT-12, BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC Nos.173 &
174/2015 dated 04.12.2017 on the file of Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and Addl. MACT - 12 at Bhadravathi, the
claimants are before this Court. The claimants have
preferred MFA Nos.2374/2018 and 2373/2018 respectively
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
for enhancement of the compensation. As the Court below
had passed common order, this Court is also disposing of
the two appeals by way of common order.
MFA NO.2374/2018 arising out of MVC NO.173/2018
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 02.08.2014
at about 10:30 p.m., the claimant in MVC NO.174/2015
along with his friend i.e., the claimant in MVC
NO.173/2015 was travelling on a Hero Honda motor bike
and at that time, respondent No.1 who was riding the
motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said accident,
both the claimants sustained grievous injuries. According
to the claimant in MVC No.173/2015, he had sustained
injury on face and he lost four teeth and also damaged six
teeth and injury on his left leg and on his right hand. He
was taken to the Government Hospital, Bhadravathi and
had taken treatment as out-patient for about five days.
He had taken further treatment at Narayana Hrudalaya
Hospital, Shivamogga and at VISL Hospital, Bhadravathi.
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
Due to the accident, six teeth are removed and fixed new
set of jaw. He had spent more than Rs.50,000/- for
medical treatment apart from the attendant charges.
3. The Court below under the head of pain and
suffering had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/-, towards
medical expenses an amount of Rs.4,735/-, towards
incidental expenses an amount of Rs.2,000/- and towards
loss of amenities and discomforts an amount of Rs.5,000/-
was granted. Altogether, compensation of an amount of
Rs.51,735/- was granted.
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and Agony Rs. 40,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 4,735/-
3. Incidental expenses Rs. 2,000/-
4. Loss of amenities and Rs. 5,000/-
discomforts
TOTAL Rs. 51,735/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that when the claimant had sustained the injuries
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
and because of it, it led to removal of teeth. He had to
spent huge amount for the permanent teeth. The Court
below had not granted a reasonable compensation. He
submits that under all the heads, the compensation that
was granted by the Tribunal was not correct. It is
submitted that the evidence of the dentist who treated the
claimant clearly shows the injuries sustained by him. For
the reasons not known, the Court below had not
considered the evidence of the dentist just because he had
maintained an out patient card by the doctor with regard
to the claimant. That itself cannot be a reason for the
Court below not to consider the evidence of the doctor. It
is submitted that the compensation that was awarded is
not just and reasonable compensation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the Court below had rightly
disbelieved the evidence of the doctor. Further, he
submits that the claimant could not establish a nexus
between the dental treatment and the injuries sustained
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
by the claimant. The Court below had rightly considered
the evidence on record had granted the compensation and
no grounds are made out for enhancement of the
compensation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, as per
Ex.P.9 - wound certificate, the claimant had sustained
multiple abrasions over face, bleeding gums, tenderness
over left hip and contusion left (ingeiour) region. The
wound certificate do not disclose that there is injury to the
teeth. Teeth are broken and it has to be removed and he
has to fix the implants. No doubt the claimant had
examined the doctor. The evidence shows that he was
going to the said hospital and out patient card was
maintained. He went to the doctor after 4-5 months from
the date of the accident. Considering that, the Court
below had disbelieved the evidence and also the
connection between the injuries and the broken teeth. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below had
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
rightly disbelieved the evidence of the doctor. Under the
head of pain and agony and medical expenses, the Court
below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.4,735/- respectively. Coming to the incidental
expenses, considering the injuries, this Court is inclined to
grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards incidental
expenses. Towards loss of amenities an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is granted.
7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an
amount of Rs.74,735/-.
8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs. 4,735/-
3. Incidental expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 74,735/-
MFA NO.2373/2018 arising out of MVC NO.174/2018
9. In this case, the claimant had sustained severe
injuries of fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th right finger and left
toe. According to the claimant, he had incurred huge
amount towards treatment. He had taken treatment as
outpatient from 02.08.2014 to 06.08.2014 and again from
06.08.2014 to 20.09.2014 and incurred substantial
amount.
10. The Court below had granted the compensation
as per the table below.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 65,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,100/-
Conveyance, attendant
3. Rs. 1,000/-
charges and nourishing food
4. Loss of amenities and Rs. 25,000/-
discomfort
TOTAL Rs. 92,100/-
11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the Court below had not granted reasonable
compensation. It is submitted that as per the evidence of
the doctor, he had sustained 5% disability but the Court
below on the ground that the claimant is a retired
employee had not considered any amount. He submits
that the Court below ought to have applied the multiplier
and ought to have granted the compensation. Even under
the other heads also the compensation that was awarded
by the Tribunal was not reasonable.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the Court below basing on the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
evidence had rightly granted the compensation and no
grounds are made for enhancement of the compensation.
13. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, as per
the evidence, the claimant had sustained fracture of 2nd,
3rd and 4th right finger and left toe. The claimant is a
retired employee. Under the head of pain and suffering,
the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.65,000/-
which is reasonable and no interference is called for.
Towards medical expenses also, the Court below had
granted an amount of Rs.1,100/- basing on the evidence.
Then coming to the conveyance, attendant charges and
nourishing food, considering the injuries and the
hospitalization, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges
and nourishing food. Under the head of loss of
amenities and discomfort, the Court below had rightly
granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- and no interference is
called for.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
14. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an
amount of Rs.1,11,100/-.
15. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 65,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs. 1,100/-
Conveyance, attendant
3. : Rs. 10,000/-
charges and nourishing food
4. Loss of amenities and : Rs. 25,000/-
discomfort
5. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs.
1,11,100/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
16. Accordingly, the MFA No.2374/2018 is allowed-
in-part, by enhancing the compensation from an amount
of Rs.51,735/- to an amount of Rs.74,735/- setting aside
the award passed in M.V.C.No.173/2015 dated 04.12.2017
and MFA No.2373/2018 is allowed-in-part, by enhancing
the compensation from an amount of Rs.92,100/- to
Rs.1,11,100/- setting aside the award passed in
M.V.C.No.174/2015 dated 04.12.2017.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii. The respondent - insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45382
iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iv. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
