Karnataka High Court

Sri Subramani vs Sri Venkateshappa on 2 August, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:30755
                                                        MFA No. 1362 of 2014
                                                    C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1362 OF 2014 (MV-I)
                                              C/W
                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2014 (MV-I)


                   IN MFA NO. 1362/2014
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI SUBRAMANI,
                   S/O LAKSHMAYA,
                   AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                   R/AT. HOLAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                   MAVAHALLI POST,
                   BANGARPET TQ,
                   KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A
Location: HIGH COURT 1. SRI VENKATESHAPPA,
OF KARNATAKA
                      S/O VARADAPPA,
                      MAJOR IN AGE,
                      R/AT KOTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      HARATHI POST,
                      KOLAR TQ. & DISTRICT-563 101.

                   2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                      M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL
                      INSURANCE COMP.LTD.,
                      BRANCH OFFICE. NO.41, 2ND FLOOR,
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:30755
                                    MFA No. 1362 of 2014
                                C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014



   CRISTU COMPLEX LAVELLE ROAD,
   BENGALURU-560 001.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
    NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
    31.01.2015)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.27/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


IN MFA NO. 1363/2014
BETWEEN:

SRI NANDISH,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NADUPALLI VILLAGE,
THAMAKA POST,
KOLAR TQ, DISTRICT-563 101.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE [V/C])

AND:

1. SRI VENKATESHAPPA,
   S/O VARADAPPA,
   MAJOR IN AGE,
   R/AT KOTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
   HARATHI POST,
   KOLAR TQ. & DISTRICT-563 101.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
   M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL
   INSURANCE COMP.LTD.,
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30755
                                       MFA No. 1362 of 2014
                                   C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014




   BRANCH OFFICE. NO.41,
   2ND FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX
   LAVELLE ROAD,
   BANGALORE-560 001.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
 V/O DATED 15.03.2024 SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR IS DIRECTED TO
TAKE NOTICE FOR R-2 [V/C])

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.06/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

In these two appeals, the appellants/petitioners

have challenged the judgment dated 23.09.2013 in

M.V.C.Nos.27/2010 and 6/2012 passed by the Principal

Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, KGF ('the Tribunal'

for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the

parties shall be referred to as per their status before the

Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

3. The brief facts of the case are that: there was

an accident on 14.02.2010 at Kempapura Bus stop at

Mulbagal Taluk, wherein a Tempo bearing registration

No.KA-07-2730 hit against the pedestrians/petitioners

causing them the injuries. After taking the treatment, the

petitioners have approached the Tribunal for grant of

compensation. The said claim were opposed by the

Insurance Company. The Tribunal after taking the

evidence and hearing both the parties, awarded

Rs.45,000/- as global compensation to the petitioner in

MFA.No.1362/2014 (MVC.No.27/2010) and Rs.1,05,000/-

to the petitioner in MFA.No.1363/2014 (MVC.No.06/2012),

with interest @ 9% per annum. The Insurance Company

has accepted the liability and satisfied the award. The

petitioners pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement

of compensation are before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of Smt.Suguna R. Reddy,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.D.Vijayakumar,

learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer.

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioner-Subramani has suffered

fracture of left shoulder, he was under hospitalization for

two days and he was unable to produce the medical bills.

Petitioner has laid-up for minimum six months, could not

able to do any work and suffered loss of income and for

the reason of his inability to place medical evidence,

global compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

5(a). The petitioner-Nandish is a 15 years old

boy, studying in 9th standard has suffered degloving

injuries to his left forearm which caused in permanent

disfigurement, which he has to carry throughout his life,

which would affect his future for employment and also

marriage. The compensation assessed at Rs.1,05,000/- is

inadequate and sought for enhancement.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that the Tribunal has concluded

that there is no medical evidence placed before it for

assessment of the injuries affecting in any manner to the

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

petitioners. There is no disability sustained by them.

Considering the period of treatment and the expenditure

incurred, the Tribunal has determined the compensation

which is just and proper and there is no need for

enhancement and supported the impugned judgment.

7. I gave my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed by both sides and perused the

materials on record.

8. The issue is only regarding quantum of

compensation. In respect of petitioner-Subramani, medical

records show that he has suffered fracture of left shoulder,

he was under hospitalization for two days and medical bills

are not produced and therefore, the compensation has to

be assessed notionally, taking into consideration the loss

of income during laid-up period, loss of amenities and

discomforts and pain and suffering is taken into

consideration. Considering all the different heads, it is fit

to award a sum of Rs.90,000/- as global compensation

instead of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and there

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

shall be an enhancement of Rs.45,000/- which is the just

compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Regarding petitioner-Nandish is concerned,

admittedly, he is a 15 years old boy, studying 9th

standard. He has suffered degloving injury to left fore arm,

which caused him the permanent disfigurement, who was

under treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, for a

period of 22 days and the medical bills amounting to

Rs.6,625.62/- were placed before the Tribunal. Degloving

injury certainly cause permanent disfigurement, which is

severe than the fracture and he has to carry throughout

his life. He has underwent pain and suffering, suffered loss

of amenities and discomfort and his parents have to

attend him during the laid up period.

9(a). In a case of this nature, compensation shall

be a just and it shall not be a penal nor a bonaza. Hence,

towards 'pain and sufferings' Rs.50,000/-; towards

'Medical expenses' Rs.10,000/-; 'attendant charges' of

Rs.5,000/-; 'food and nourishment' of Rs.10,000/-;

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

'traveling expenses' of Rs.3,000/-; 'loss of amenities and

discomfort' of Rs.50,000/-; 'loss of four months income for

the parents' of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500 X 4); and towards

'disfigurement' Rs.15,000/- is assessed. 'Future medical

expenses' is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Total compensation

comes to Rs.1,75,000/- as against Rs.1,05,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal and thereby, there shall be an

enhancement of Rs.70,000/-. This is the just

compensation that the petitioner is entitled for under the

facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Adverting to the rate of interest awarded at 9%

by the Tribunal is concerned, as rightly contended by the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the

Tribunal has not assigned any special reason. The

Insurance Company is not in appeal, the Tribunal has

exercised its discretion in awarding 9% interest, it is not

proper to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal.

Insofar as enhanced compensation, it is proper to award

NC: 2024:KHC:30755

interest at 6% p.a. Hence appeal merits consideration, in

the result, the following:

ORDER

The appeals are hereby allowed in part.

The impugned judgment is modified accordingly.

The petitioner in MVC.No.27/2010 is entitled to

enhanced compensation of Rs.45,000/- and the petitioner

in MVC.No.06/2012 is entitled to enhanced compensation

of Rs.70,000/-.

The Petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% interest

per annum from the date of petitions till the date of

deposit.

The Insurance Company shall deposit the

compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this judgment with interest at

6% excluding interest on future medical expenses of

Rs.10,000/- in respect of petitioner-Nandish.