Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vidya Veni vs Rajesh on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
MFA No. 121 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIDYA VENI,
W/O HARISH ACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.# 2-20,
POLIYA, BADA UCHILA,
UDUPI - 574 117.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJESH,
S/O AMANTHA ACHARYA,
Digitally
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
signed by JAI R/AT VISHWAKARMA COMPOUND,
JYOTHI J
Location: PADUPANAMBOOR,
HIGH
COURT OF HALEYANGADI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 028.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHALIMAR COMPLEX, KANKANADY,
MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
MFA No. 121 of 2017
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED : 29.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1814/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, MANGALURU(DK), 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
This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation aggrieved by the award
passed in M.V.C.No.1814/2014 dated 29.07.2016 by the
MACT II, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The
Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of
Rs.6,52,000/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
2. It is the case of the claimant that he had
sustained several grievous injuries and also sustained
disability because of the said injuries. Except examining
himself as PW.1 and other as PW.2, he has not examined
the doctor before the Court below. No cogent evidence
was let in before the Court below and the Court below
considering the evidence on record had granted the
compensation.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he was working
in a Company and earning an amount of Rs.8,522/- per
month and take home salary was an amount of
Rs.6,216/-. In support of that, he had examined PW.2,
the employer. The Court below had taken an amount of
Rs.8,500/- as the salary. As per Ex.P.4 - wound
certificate, the claimant had sustained chest injury with
multiple abrasions on the face, hand and lower limbs and
laceration over the left occipito parietal region with
haemopneumothorax. Further, the X-ray revealed that the
3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs sustained fracture
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
resulting in haemopneumothorax and 8th and 9th ribs on
the right side were fractured and there was lung
contusion. He was in hospital for a period of 59 days. No
doctor was examined on behalf of the claimant.
Considering this, under the head of pain and suffering, the
Court below had granted an amount of Rs.70,000/-,
towards loss of amenities in life, an amount of
Rs.50,000/-, towards medical expenses, an amount of
Rs.4,60,000/-, towards loss of income during the laid up
period, an amount of Rs.42,000/- and towards
miscellaneous expenses, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was
granted. Altogether, compensation of an amount of
Rs.6,52,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
4. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. is
filed before this Court stating that though he has sustained
disability and as he has not examined the doctor and as no
evidence was produced, the Court below had not
considered any amount under the head of loss of future
income. It is submitted that the claimant had approached
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
the medical board of Wenlock District Hospital, Mangalore,
D.K. District and a certificate was issued stating that she
had sustained 25% disability. It is stated that in the
interest of justice, the same may be taken on file as
additional evidence and the disability may be considered.
No objections are filed by the respondent - Insurance
Company to this application. The application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 is allowed. Considering that the
certificate is issued by the medical board, this Court is
inclined to consider the disability at 25% to the left hip
and 8% to the whole body.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that under all the heads, compensation that was
granted was not reasonable and the same has to be
enhanced.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is on the higher
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
side and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the
compensation. He submits that if the matter is remanded
back to the Court below, they would get an opportunity to
cross examine the doctor in support of the certificate.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. First, coming to the
application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., if the
certificate issued by the medical board, had been issued
by a doctor, this Court would have appreciated the
contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company and would have remanded the matter. In this
case, the certificate is issued by the medical board,
remanding the matter would not serve any purpose,
examining the doctors in the medical board is not
necessary. Hence, this Court is considering 8% as the
disability to the whole body and an amount of Rs.8,500/-
as the salary. Then, loss of future earning would come to
Rs.8,500x12x17x8/100 = Rs.1,38,720/-. When it comes
to the other heads, towards pain and suffering an amount
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
of Rs.70,000/-, towards loss of amenities, an amount of
Rs.50,000/-, towards medical expenses, an amount of
Rs.4,60,000/-, towards loss of income during the laid up
period, an amount of Rs.42,000/- and towards
miscellaneous expenses, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was
awarded by the Court below is just and reasonable and
this Court finds no reason to interfere the same.
8. 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.8,00,720/-.
9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 70,000/-
2. Loss of future earning : Rs. 1,38,720/-
3. Loss of amenities in life : Rs. 50,000/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 4,60,000/-
5. Loss of income during the laid : Rs. 42,000/-
up period
6. Miscellaneous expenses : Rs. 30,000/-
7. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs.
8,00,720/-
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by
enhancing the compensation from an amount of
Rs.6,52,000/- to an amount of Rs.8,00,720/- setting
aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.1814/2014 dated
29.07.2016
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
NC: 2023:KHC:42817
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.
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:SNN
