Karnataka High Court
B Veerabhadraih vs Mahanthaiah on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
MFA No. 7968 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7968 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. B.VEERABHADRAIH
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WATERMAN OF PANCHAYAT
R/O BYRAPUR, KASABA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMGALORE DISTRICT-577134.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHANTHAIAH
S/O NAGAIAH
AGE: MAJOR,
Digitally signed by DRIVER JCB
PRAJWAL A R/O CHANDONI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH COURT LINGASGUR TALUK
OF KARNATAKA RAICHUR DISTRICT-584140.
2. N.C.MOHANKUMAR
S/O CHANNAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF JCB,
R/O NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572211.
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE EAST WINGH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
MFA No. 7968 of 2013
5TH FLOOR, 28 CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.C.BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.11.2013,
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MAMACT, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 21.05.2013 passed in
M.V.C.No.24/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
MAMACT, Tarikere ('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.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 02.04.2008 at about
2.15 p.m. in the Hariyannana Lake of Byrapura Village,
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
when the petitioner was giving drinking water to the
respondent No.1, the driver of the JCB engaged in the land
excavation moved the same in a rash and negligent
manner. As a result of which the petitioner who was
getting down from the JCB has fell down from the
mudguard of the JCB and sustained grievous injuries to his
left leg, face and hands. The petitioner approached the
Tribunal seeking compensation, claim was opposed by the
respondents, the Tribunal by taking evidence and on
hearing both the parties, by impugned judgment awarded
the following compensation:-
01. Pain & Suffering Rs. 30,000/-
02. Medical Expenses Rs. 33,213/-
03. For Food, Attendant & Rs. 7,000/-
Conveyance Charges
04. Loss of Income Rs. 5,676/-
05. Loss of Amenities & Future Rs. 5,000/-
Unhappiness
TOTAL Rs. 80,889/-
Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the
petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
4. Heard Sri Hosmath M.S, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri H.C. Betsur, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was working as a 'Waterman' of
Doranalu Grama Panchayath. The petitioner was aged 29
years, has suffered fracture of left tibia and fibula and was
under hospitalization from 03.04.2008 to 16.04.2008 and
03.09.2008 to 05.09.2008 and has traveled to Mangaluru
on many occasions and spent huge amount for treatment.
The disability certificate which is produced at Ex.P12
points out that petitioner has suffered 9% disability.
However, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for
towards future medical expenses and sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company has contended that petitioner is a permanent
employee of the Grama Panchayath and the injury has not
affected his work and there is no loss of earning, since he
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
continued his job in the Grama Panchayath. The Tribunal
has considered the same and awarded compensation
towards incidental expenses and supported the impugned
judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
8. The accident in question is not in dispute. The
medical records shows that the petitioner has suffered
fracture of both the bones of left leg and was inpatient in
Kasturaba Hospital, Manipal for a period of 14 days from
02.04.2008 to 16.04.2008 and from 03.09.2008 to
05.09.2008 for a period of 3 days and in all 17 days.
P.W.3 is the Doctor, who has given evidence before the
Court. His evidence points out only with regard to
treatment given and his evidence did not refer to issue of
disability certificate at Ex.P12 nor the petitioner suffering
from disability on account of injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
9. Ex.P12 is disability certificate issued by P.W.3
to the effect that petitioner has suffered 9% whole body
disability. During the course of evidence, neither the
petitioner nor the Medical Officer has spoken about the
injury affecting future earning capacity of the petitioner.
When the medical evidence did not point out the disability
suffered by the petitioner at 9% referred to in Ex.P12, the
same can only be taken into consideration for awarding
compensation towards loss of amenities and discomfort.
10. The medical bills points out that a sum of
Rs.33,213/- is spent by the petitioner and the same is
retained as it is. Ex.P12 points out that there is a need for
future medical treatment for removal of implant, future
medical expenses is awarded at Rs.10,000/-. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.33,000/-
towards pain and suffering is just and proper. The
petitioner was attended by a attendant for 17 days, money
spent towards food and nourishment and he has traveled
to Mangaluru for treatment and follow up and he has to be
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
compensated with traveling expenses. Thus, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards food, attendant and
conveyance charges.
11. The petitioner being a Waterman would have
laid up for a period of six months for his treatment and
admittedly, his salary is Rs.1,892/- per month, loss of
income is assessed at Rs.11,352/-. Towards loss of
amenities and discomfort, Rs.30,000/- is assessed.
There are no grounds to award compensation for loss of
future earning for want of evidence. Hence, the petitioner
is entitled to compensation as follows:-
1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 30,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 33,213/-
3. Food, attendant and conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
charges
4. Loss of income Rs. 11,352/-
5. Loss of amenities and discomfort Rs. 30,000/-
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.1,24,565/-
Less compensation Rs. 80,889/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced compensation Rs. 43,676/-
NC: 2024:KHC:31192
It is the just compensation the petitioner is entitled
to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence
appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following :-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified.
(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.43,676/- together with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit,
excluding interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.10,000/-.
(iv) The insurance company has to deposit the
compensation within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
ST
