Karnataka High Court
Kashiram Bhupal Reddy vs The Regional Manager on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4620/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KASHIRAM BHUPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.44, RASHMI NILAYA
3RD MAIN ROAD,
SREENAKTESHWARANAGARA,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.132, MANGALYA PUNARBHAV BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD,
Digitally BENGALURU-560 025.
signed by
RENUKAMBA 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KG
M/S 3D CONCEPT TOOLING,
Location: High
Court of NO.5-B-44, 1ST CROSS,
Karnataka 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BENGALURU-560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED18.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2201/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
CAUSES JUDGE, & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act'
for short), seeking enhancement of the award passed by
Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH.13),
Bengaluru, in MVC No.2201/2011 dated 18.01.2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the
Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that the petitioner/claimant has filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road
traffic accident. It is his case that on 07.03.2011, at
6.15 p.m., when he was driving motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA 02 HB 7636 on NH4 near Peenya Police
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
Station signal junction in Bangalore, the Tata mobile
vehicle bearing registration No.KA 02 AA 5264 came in a
high speed and dashed to the two-wheeler of the
petitioner, resulting in the accident. It is further asserted
that petitioner immediately was taken to Ravi Kirloskar
Hospital and after first aid, he was shifted to Columbia
Asia Hospital, wherein he was treated as an inpatient and
underwent surgeries. It is also asserted that he has spent
more than Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and he
was earning Rs.17,000/- per month and due to accidental
injuries, he is unable to discharge his duty as he was
working as a auditor in a private firm. Hence, he filed the
claim petition.
4. The petition was contested by the respondents
by disputing the claim. After appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, the tribunal has awarded a total
compensation of Rs.3,52,458/- as against respondent
Nos.1 & 2 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
5. Being aggrieved by this award, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking enhancement.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that though the petitioner has suffered 16%
disability, the same was not taken into consideration and
the future medical expenses awarded to the tune of
Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. He would also assert that
the laid up period taken for two months is on lower side
and hence, he would seek for enhancement.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.1-Insurer would contend that the admissions given by
PW1 disclose that he continued in his employment and
there is no loss of future income and hence, the Tribunal
has rightly rejected this claim. He would also assert that
there is no proper evidence regarding future medical
expenses and Tribunal has awarded reasonable
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
compensation under various heads which does not call for
any interference. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of
the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, there is no serious dispute of the fact that the
petitioner suffered injuries in the accident involving the
offending vehicle. Further, the liability is also undisputed.
The dispute is only regarding the quantum of the
compensation.
10. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation
under various heads which reads as under:
Amount
Particulars
Sl No. in Rs.
1. Pain and sufferings 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses 1,85,000/-
3. Conveyance, nourishment etc., 15,000/-
Loss of earnings during laid up 27,458/-
4.
period
Loss of amenities and future 50,000/-
5.
happiness
6. Future Medical expenses 15,000/-
Total: 3,52,458/-
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
11. The main contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner has suffered 16%
disability. The same was not taken note of considering the
nature of injuries as he suffered a fracture of the knee.
However, the cross-examination of PW1 itself clearly
discloses that he continued in the employment and looking
to this aspect, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of future income.
When the petitioner has continued in the employment and
when there is no evidence to show that there is any
reduction in his salary because of this accidental injuries,
question of he claiming the compensation under the head
of loss of future income does not arise at all. Hence, the
said argument holds no water.
12. The other contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant is regarding awarding
compensation under the head of Future Medical Expenses
only to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. He would contend that the
estimate given by the Columbia Asia Hospital Authorities
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
discloses that he requires Rs.72,000/- towards future
medical expenses. But though the accident has occurred in
2011 and even in 2023 no documents have been produced
to show that the petitioner has made any efforts to
undergo the operation for removal of the implants. Even
the petitioner has not examined any doctor from the
concerned Columbia Asia Hospital and only the estimation
cannot be taken note of. Further in 2011 for removal of
the implant the estimation of Rs.72,000/- is on higher
side. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded Rs.15,000/- under the future medical expenses
which does not call for any interference.
13. The Tribunal has also awarded medical
expenses to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/- which is based on
documentary evidence and it does not call for any
interference.
14. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation for
laid up period for two months. It is submitted that the
petitioner has suffered a knee injury and he has to
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
undergo lot of pain and recovery takes a longer process
and hence, he would submit that a minimum three months
laid up period should have been considered. Considering
the submission and nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, in my considered opinion, the said submission
appears to be fair. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for
three months laid up period. The income was taken as
Rs.13,729/- which is not under dispute and three months
laid up period would work as under:
Rs.13729X3=Rs.41,187/-
15. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities and future happiness.
The petitioner is an auditor and was doing table work. But
However, he being an auditor, supposed to move from
table to table and it requires certain movements and
petitioner would feel lot of inconvenience. Considering
these aspects, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head
of loss of amenities and future happiness as against
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards pain and
suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/-, which
does not call for any interference. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner/claimant would be entitled
under various heads as under:
Sl.
Particulars Amount
No.
1 Pain & suffering Rs.60,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,85,000/-
3 Conveyance, nourishment Rs.15,000/-
etc.,
4 Loss of earnings during Rs.41,187/-
laid up period
5 Loss of amenities and Rs.60,000/-
future happiness
6 Future Medical expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.3,76,187/-
Award of Tribunal Rs.3,52,458/-
Enhanced Rs.23,729/-
compensation
16. As such the petitioner/claimant would be
entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,76,187/- as
against Rs.3,52,458/- awarded by the Tribunal. As such,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:38302
MFA No. 4620 of 2013
the appeal needs to be allowed in part and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The appellant/claimant is held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,76,187/- as against
Rs.3,52,458/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation of Rs.23,729/-
(Rs.3,76,187/- - Rs.3,52,458/-) shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition and respondent No.1 is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with
accrued interest thereon within a period of six
weeks before the Tribunal. Entire enhanced
compensation be released in favour of
petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
