Karnataka High Court
G Veeranna vs K Madanappa on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
MFA No. 2448 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
G. VEERANNA
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
HOTEL BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT THIMPLAPURA VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. MADANAPPA
S/O CHANNAPPA
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRAJWAL A BUSINESS NAVEEN NILAYA
Location: HIGH COURT NEAR MAHATMA GANDHI SCHOOL
OF KARNATAKA GANDHI NAGARA, CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.10.2016
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
MFA No. 2448 of 2015
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.95/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL MACT, CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner is challenging the
judgment and award dated 11.12.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.95/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT,
Challakere (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties will be referred to as per the status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 12.02.2012 at
about 9.00 a.m. Car bearing No.KA-16/M-3759 belonging
to respondent No.1 in which the petitioner was a
passenger met with an accident, due to which, the
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
petitioner sustained fracture of left clavicle, fracture of
right femur and fracture of frontal bone. He was treated
at Basaveshwara Hospital at Chitradurga, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Bengaluru under hospitalization for about two
months. Seeking grant of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-,
the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The claim was
opposed by the insurer of the car. The Tribunal, after
taking evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the
claim petition granting global compensation of Rs.50,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking
enhancement, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri Jagan Mohan M.T., learned counsel
for petitioner and Sri. B.Pradeep, learned counsel for
Insurance Company.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the petitioner has suffered major fractures
and medical evidence is placed before the Tribunal
explaining limb disability of 59%. Medical bills itself
constitute an amount of Rs.1,91,135.14 but, no
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
compensation is awarded under different heads except
awarding global compensation of Rs.50,000/- and sought
for enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the petitioner has not
properly explained the medical expenses, injuries
sustained and the disability. For this reason, the Tribunal
disbelieved the bills produced by the petitioner and
awarded a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- which has
already been satisfied by the Insurance Company.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for parties
and perused the records.
8. Material on record goes to show that the
petitioner has sustained fracture of left clavicle, fracture of
right femur and fracture of frontal bone. PW.2 is the
Doctor who has assessed disability to the limb to an extent
of 59%. The Tribunal did not believe the same. The
medical bills pertained to in-patient bills and major bills
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
are issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. On perusal of the
medical bills, it is evident that they are treatment bills
pertain to the petitioner. Tribunal has not assigned any
reason to disbelieve the said bills. Thus, compensation
towards medical expenses has to be reimbursed. As
advised by the Doctor, petitioner took treatment and
accordingly, medical bills have been issued.
9. It is not in dispute that, petitioner is aged 58
years which is also mentioned in the medical certificate
and he is working in a hotel. Having regard to the injuries
suffered by the petitioner, the whole body disability is
assessed at 17% and applicable multiplier is `9'. Petitioner
has placed no evidence in proof of his income. The
accident is of the year 2012. A person with no income
proof might not have been earning less than Rs.7,000/-
per month. Hence, notionally, Rs.7,000/- is considered as
his monthly income.
10. Insofar as medical expenses, the summary of
bills which are made available at Exs.P11 and 112 point
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
out a sum of Rs.1,91,135.14. The same was paid by the
petitioner, for which the petitioner is entitled to be
reimbursed. The petitioner was under hospitalization from
13.02.2012 to 24.02.2012. He has spent money towards
attendant, traveling expenses and food and nourishment.
Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is assessed. Due to the
injuries suffered by the petitioner, he could not attend to
his normal duties for four months. He is entitled for the
same at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. Thus, the
global compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.50,000/- is not justified in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
11. The petitioner is entitled to compensation as
follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering 40,000.00
2. Towards medical expenses 1,91,000.00
3. Attendant, Food and 15,000.00
Nourishment expenses
4. Loss of income during laid-up 28,000-00
period Rs.7,000x 4
5. Towards loss of amenities and 40,000.00
discomfort
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
6. Loss of future earning 1,28,520.00
Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 9 x 17%
Total
4,42,520.00
Less: Compensation awarded by 50,000.00
the Tribunal
Grand Total 3,92,520.00
It is the just compensation, the petitioner is entitled
to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Hence, the appeal merits consideration, in the
result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed in- part.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and award is
modified.
(iii) The appellant would be entitled
to enhanced compensation of
Rs. 3,92,520.00/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till its deposit.
(iv) Both the respondents are directed to pay
the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:31526
(v) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest
within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
Sk/-
