Karnataka High Court
Sannamma vs Mallikarjun K on 21 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
MFA No. 6853 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6853 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SANNAMMA,
W/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY,
MADENURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
TIPTUR TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN K,
S/O LATE SIDDABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/A NO.3714/6, PARISHRAMA,
Digitally
signed by JAI M.C.C-'A', BLOCK, SRI VINAYAKA TEMPLE CROSS,
JYOTHI J DAVANAGERE TOWN. (R.C. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
Location: HONDA BEARING NO.REG. KA-17-EL-5004)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE 2A, 2ND FLOOR, 84-RAMSON
COMPLEX, P.B ROAD, HOSUR, HUBLI - 580 021.
(POLICE NO.2312/53617266/02/000
VALID FROM 22/11/2015 TO 21/11/2016)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH )
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
MFA No. 6853 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.199/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in
M.V.C.No.199/2017 dated 31.10.2018 by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, the claimant is before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by
the claimant in the accident. As per the wound certificate
the claimant had sustained fractures like Tenderness over
left shoulder and left hip. Fracture of left shoulder at
lateral end of left clavicle, fracture of body and internal
romenes of left public bone, fracture of 3rd number
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
vertebra and other injuries all over the body. The Doctor,
who is not a treated Doctor had assessed the disability at
48%. The Court below had observed that the claimant
had not produced any document to show that the claimant
had taken 20 days treatment as inpatient in the hospital
and also not produced any document to show that
Rs.50,000/- was spent towards medicine. The Court
below has disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 relying on the
judgment of this Court in the MANAGING DIRECTOR
NWKRTC VS. FAKHIRAPPA1 The Court having
disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor, who is not the
treated Doctor has granted a global compensation of an
amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
3. When the matter came up before this court on
20.12.2023 there was no representation on behalf of the
appellant. Today also there is no representation on behalf
ILR 2008 KAR 2796
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
of the appellant as this is an appeal of 2019 this court is
proceeding with two weeks.
[
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company submits that as the treated Doctor was not
examined and the Court below relying on the judgment of
this Court has disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor and
has granted global compensation of an amount of
Rs.40,000/- and no grounds are made out for
enhancement of compensation.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Insurance Company, perused the material on
record.
6. In this case, no doubt the Doctor who had examined
the claimant was not the Doctor who treated the claimant,
that itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire
evidence. This Court has perused the wound certificate.
As per the wound certificate the claimant had sustained
three fractures and hence under the head of 'pain and
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
suffering' this Court is inclined to grant an amount of
Rs.60,000/- and when it comes to medical expenses, no
evidence is placed on record as such, the Court had not
granted any compensation. The claimant sustained many
injuries and fractures and was admitted in the hospital,
this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards medical expenses. Then coming to the 'loss of
income during laid up period': according to the claimant
himself he was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-
hence, considering the same for four months, the claimant
would be entitled for an amount of Rs.24,000/-
(Rs.6,000/-x4). Towards attendant, nourishment and
transport - an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted.
Then coming to the evidence of the Doctor, according to
the Doctor, the claimant had suffered 48% disability. He
has not given any calculation with regard to disability to
the whole body, on what basis he has arrived at such
conclusion, but at the same time just because that
explanation is not given, totally the Court cannot discard
the evidence of the Doctor. Considering the wound
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
certificate and the injuries sustained by the claimant, this
Court is inclined to take 20% as the disability and the
loss of future income would come to Rs.1,00,800/-
(Rs.6,000 x 12 x 7 x 20/100), towards loss of
amenities this Court is granting an amount of
Rs.50,000/-.
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 ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
8. Accordingly the claimant is entitled for the following
compensation:-
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/-
3. Loss of income during Rs. 24,000/-
laid up period (6,000 x
4)
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
4 Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 15,000/-
and Transport
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
6. Legal expenses Rs. 10,000/-
7. Loss of future Income Rs.1,00,800/-
(Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 7 x
Total Rs.2,64,800/-
i) Accordingly, the Appeal of the claimant is
allowed-in-part, by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.40,000/- to
Rs.2,64,800/-.
ii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
iii) The respondent No.2 - 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.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of
NC: 2023:KHC:46940
the order passed by this Court forthwith without any
delay.
v) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
NG
CT: BHK
