Karnataka High Court
Javaraiah vs Deepu on 15 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
MFA No. 4805 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4805 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
JAVARAIAH
S/O. LATE DODDAKALASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT HALLIMALA VILLAGE
HARISANDRA POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK - 562159
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEEPU
S/O. VENKARAMAIAH
Digitally AGED MAJOR
signed by BS R/AT. MANDABAL VILLAGE
RAVIKUMAR
MAGADU TALUK - 562158
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
KARNATAKA BY ITS MANAGER
NO 217/A, 3RD FLOOR
OUTER RING ROAD
KASTURINAGAR
BENGLAURU 560043
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
MFA No. 4805 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.09.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.335/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MACT, RAMANAGARA, 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 appeal is preferred by the claimant against the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.335/2018 dated
09.10.2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT
Ramanagara, (for short hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') on
the ground of inadequate and meager compensation awarded
by the tribunal.
2. The claimant was riding the TVS XL Motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-42-H-9824 on 02.06.2018 at about
10:30 a.m. and while he was proceeding near Hallimala Circle,
at that time a driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-42-A
8513 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the vehicle of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant
fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant was immediately
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
taken to BGS hospital and later shifted to Narayana Hospital,
Ramanagara for better treatment and the claimant spent more
than a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical treatment and
other miscellaneous expenses. It is claimed that he was an
agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due
to the accident, the petitioner is unable to do his work. Hence,
he filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
3. The respondent No.1 filed statement of objections
and respondent No.2 did not chose to file statement of
objections. Respondent No.1 denied the petition averments
and he is the owner of the offending vehicle. He stated that the
vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and at the time
of the accident, the policy was in force. Hence, respondent No.1
prayed to fasten the liability on respondent No.2/insurance
company.
4. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and he examined doctor as PW.2
and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The respondents
neither adduced evidence nor produced documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence
placed before the tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel
for both the parties, tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.5,69,500/- along with interest at 7% per annum. Being
aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the
tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement
of compensation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant
and learned counsel for the insurance company. Perused the
impugned judgment and award.
7. Exs.P1 to P13 are produced by the claimant, out of
which the police records depict filing of an FIR and a charge
sheet as against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence,
negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the
offending vehicle.
8. Now coming to the question of age, avocation,
income and the disability, it is seen that the claimant was aged
about 50 years as on date of occurrence of the accident. The
tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at a sum
Rs.11,000/- per month and applied multiplier as '11' which is
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
correct and does not call for interference. The doctor has been
examined as PW.2 who has opined by stepping into the witness
box that there is disability to an extent of 34% to the whole
body. He has provided the disability formula to arrive such
disability. Admittedly, there is a disability to lower limb and he
has sustained three fractures and bones are united and hence
the claimant will not be able to bear the same, as he is working
as an agriculturist. The tribunal on considering the evidence of
doctor has divided the disability assessed by the doctor to an
extent of 34% into three parts and assessed the disability at
11.33%.
9. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
claimant who contended that disability to be assessed more
than what is assessed by the tribunal, as the doctor has opined
three fractures suffered by the claimant i.e., fracture of left
calcaneum with heel pad necrosis, fracture of left tibial plateau
and fracture of right pubic rami. It is also stated that the
claimant does not have a heel and he has to undergo a plastic
surgery. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is an
agriculturist, the disability suffered by him may cause serious
hindrance to him in doing his agricultural work. Hence,
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
disability will have to be assessed to an extent of 17% i.e.,
34%/2, as against 11.33% assessed by the tribunal. Therefore,
the loss of future earning due to disability would be 12,500/- x
12 x 17% = Rs.2,80,500/- as against a sum of Rs.1,64,152/-.
10. Towards pain and suffering the tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- the same is just and proper, no
need to interfere with the same. Towards loss of income during
laid up period, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.66,000/-,
same is retained. Towards food and nourishment, attendant
charges a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the tribunal, the
same is retained. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards
loss of amenities, which is on the lower side, hence, an
additional sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the said head.
Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.1,89,323/- is awarded
and the same is retained. Towards future medical expenses a
sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded and the same is just and proper
and no need to interfere with the same.
11. In view of the above discussions, the claimant
would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,25,823/- as
against Rs.5,69,475/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:7764
12. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the tribunal in
MVC No.335/2018 dated 09.10.2020 is modified and the
claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,25,823/- along
with interest at 6% per annum.
(iii) The enhanced compensation shall be paid within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iv) Entire compensation amount shall be disbursed and
released in favour of the claimant upon proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
