Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravinder vs The Regional Manager on 2 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
MFA No. 6352 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6352 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDER
S/O SRI. SUBRAMANI D.K.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT C/O CHANDRAKALA, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR IAF POST,
BANGALURU - 560 063
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO. LTD.,
UNNATI ARCADE, 5/111 AND 6/112,
Digitally signed by
1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK,
VEDAVATHI A K DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
Location: High (1ST MAIN ROAD),
Court of
Karnataka RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2. MR. VENKATARAMAN.N.
S/O SRI. NARASIMHA IYER,
MAJOR, NO.25, DAMODAR MUDLLIAR STREET,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HOLEBASAPPA C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:19/7/2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
MFA No. 6352 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6048/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7,
BENGALURU (SCCH-7), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1)
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and
award dated 09.12.2019 passed in MVC No.6048/2017 passed
by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT.,
Bengaluru (SCCH-7), (for short hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel on both the
sides.
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
3. The ranks of the parties before the Tribunal is retained
for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that petitioner
has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of I.M.V. Act for
claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in the
road traffic accident occurred on 09.08.2017. It is alleged that
on the said date at 10.15 a.m., when he was proceeding in a
Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HR-0267 on B.B.
Road Service Road, Baglur, Bangalore near BSF, a lorry bearing
registration No.KA-03-3474 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the petitioner. Due to which, he fell down
and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to
the Apurva Hospital, Bengaluru and was treated as an inpatient
and he has suffered grievous injuries, communited left clavicle
fracture, right distal radius fracture and right 2nd toe
amputation. Due to the injuries suffered, he is unable to attend
the job for almost 5 months and he is suffering from disability.
Hence, prayed for compensation.
5. The respondent No.2 was placed an exparte.
Respondent No.1-insurer has appeared and filed statement of
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
objections by denying the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of
the petitioner and also contended that the driver of the vehicle
did not have valid and effective driving license at the time of
driving the vehicle and has violated the terms and conditions of
the policy. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent
act of driver of Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-03-3474 and in the said accident
Petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? if so, to what extent and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. To prove the case, the petitioner himself was examined
as PW-1 and also examined the Doctor as PW-2 and got
marked 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to 20. The respondents have
not lead any evidence nor got marked any documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
8. After hearing the arguments, Tribunal has answered
issue No.1 in the Affirmative, issue No.2 in the Partly
Affirmative and allowed the petition in-part by awarding
compensation of Rs.2,84,116/- under various heads as under:
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
For pain and sufferings, mental 50,000/-
agony
Actual medical expenses 1,54,116/-
For Special diet and 10,000/-
Conveyance.
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Future medical expenses. 20,000/-
Total 2,84,116/-
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
the petitioner has suffered communited left clavicle fracture,
right distal radius fracture and right 2nd toe amputation. The
Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards 'loss of
income due to disability'. The Doctor has assessed 50%
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
disability to the whole body but the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation.
11. Compensation awarded by the tribunal under the
head 'loss of amenities' is very meager and for future medical
expenses he may require Rs.45,000/-. But the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.20,000/-, which is on the lower side. Even
the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of income
during laid up period' is also not just and proper even though
he has got marked Ex.P.9 - letter issued by the employer. He
has not attended the duty for 144 days. Hence, prays for
enhancing the same.
12. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
objected the appeal contending that there is no loss of future
income due to disability and the petitioner is the Central
Government Employee and he has resumed the job from
January, 2018 and continued his work and there is no loss of
income. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and
granted compensation towards pain and suffering. Even
though the petitioner has obtained medical reimbursement
from his employer but he has claimed Rs,1,54,116/- the same
was already deposited by the respondents. Therefore, it is
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
contended that there is no need to enhance any compensation.
He has also contended that the author of the Ex.P-9 is not
being examined. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered
the document and not awarded any compensation towards 'loss
of income during laid up period'. Hence, prays for dismissing
the appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments, perused the records the
point that arises for consideration is:-
Whether the appellant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation. If so, to what
extent?
14. On perusal of record, the accident occurred on
09.08.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry
by its driver is not in dispute. Due to which, the petitioner
sustained grievous injury. Exs.P-1 to 6 are the police
documents regarding accident and Ex.P-7 is the Wound
Certificate, which reveals that due to the accident, the
petitioner has suffered injuries, which are grievous in nature.
He was said to be admitted in the hospital for 6 days and has
taken treatment as an inpatient.
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
15. With regard to the income, the claimant was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month as per Ex.P-8 - pay slip and he is a
Central Government Employee and after leave period, he has
resumed to his service from January, 2018. Such being the
case, there is no loss of future income due to the disability.
However, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries such as
communited left clavicle fracture and he has undergone
surgery. Later the implants were removed. K-wire fixation was
done to right distal Radius of petitioner and K-wire is not yet
removed. However, he requires future medical treatment.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
petitioner has not claimed reimbursement of medical expenses.
However, if the appellant/petitioner being a Government
employee normally, he is entitled for the reimbursement for the
medical expenses upon the original documents are produced.
Here, there is no rebuttal evidence by the respondents' side to
show that he has claimed any medical expenditure from his
employer. Such being the case, the Tribunal has rightly
granted Rs.1,54,116/- towards medical expenses.
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
17. In so far as pain and sufferings and mental agony,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards
special diet and conveyance. Hence, it requires no interference.
However, the loss of amenities have been granted at
Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner being Government employee and
Mechanic, he has lost one of the finger on the right foot. Such
being the case, it has to be properly compensated for loss of
finger. Therefore, I proceed to award Rs.50,000/- towards the
loss of finger.
18. With regard to the 'future medical expenses'
Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal is on the lesser side.
Whereas, the petitioner may require Rs.45,000/- for the
purpose of removing K-wire, which is yet to be removed and
until it is properly united, it cannot be removed. Therefore,
petitioner may require another amount of Rs.20,000/- towards
'future medical expenses'. Hence, it is just and proper to
award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses
instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
19. With regard to the 'loss of income during laid up
period', the petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 - letter issued by his
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
employer, wherein it is stated that he has applied leave and
joined duty on 01.01.2018. He has remained absent and
applied leave without pay from 09.08.2017 to 31.12.2017 i.e.,
144 days which reveals that the petitioner was under medical
leave without pay. Such being the case, the Court is required
to grant compensation under the head 'loss of income during
laid up period'. It is also pertinent to note that while awarding
compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up
period', the actual income of the petitioner has to be
considered. Such being the case, the petitioner has produced a
document at Ex.P.9, which proves that he was a Central
Government Employee and the Air Force Department has
issued certificate. Such being the case, disbelieving the
certificate issued by the Department is not correct. Therefore,
the petitioner is entitled for 5 months laid up period by
considering the income of the petitioner at Rs.30,000/- per
month. Hence, petitioner is entitled for an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- (30,000 x 5) under the head 'loss of income
during laid up period'.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
20. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for
compensation as under.
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Pain and sufferings, mental 50,000/-
agony
Medical expenses 1,54,116/-
For Special diet and 10,000/-
Conveyance.
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Future medical expenses. 40,000/-
Loss of finger 50,000/-
Loss of income during laid up 1,50,000/-
period
Total 5,04,116/-
Rounded off to 5,04,200/-
25. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in-part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 09.12.2019 passed in
MVC No.6048/2017 by IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl.
MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-7) is modified;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24903
iii. The appellant/claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.5,04,200/- as against Rs.2,84,116/- together with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of realization,
iv. The entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released to
the petitioner.
v. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the award amount
excluding future medical expenses within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to
the Tribunal along with certified copy of the order passed
by this Court forthwith without any delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VS
CT:SK
