Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesh K vs K P Harish on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
MFA No. 8858 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 8858 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH K
S/O B. KARIYAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS
DOOR NO.1122, E AND F BLOCK,10 TH MAIN
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.B.N.MANJULA, ADV. FOR
SRI. NAGARAJ R C., ADV.)
AND:
1. K P HARISH
S/O K.P.POOVAIAH, AGED 39 YEARS
PARAKATAGERI VILLAGE AND POST
VEERAJAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DIST.
2. PRAVEEN PYATRIK
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O HARIPYATRIK, R/O M.I.G.1016
REGIONAL COLLEGE, COMPOUND
Digitally signed by BOGHADI (NORTH) MYSURU - 570 001
PRAJWAL A 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
Location: HIGH COURT RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSURU
OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 570 001
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
NO.442/3/4, 2ND FLOOR,
CHAMARAJHA DOUBLE ROAD,
NEAR RAMASWAMY CIRCLE,
MYSURU, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 570 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI.B.C.SETTHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R4[VC];
VIDE ORDER DATED 9.11.2023;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
MFA No. 8858 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.687/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AS A
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, 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 this appeal, the petitioner is seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties will be referred to as per the status before the
Tribunal.
3. Undisputedly, there was an accident on
20.03.2013 at 6.00 p.m., at Ramakrishna Nagar of
Mysuru involving the motorcycle bearing No.KA-
09/EW-2068 and Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
09/B-6914, the petitioner as rider of the motorcycle
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
has sustained fracture of right femur, he was under
hospitalization for 5 days. Seeking grant of
compensation he has approached the Tribunal. The
claim was opposed by the insurance companies of both
motorcycle as well as Tata Indica Car. The Tribunal
after taking the evidence and hearing both the parties,
allowed the claim petition granting compensation of
Rs.1,82,780/- with 9% interest. Pleading inadequacy
and seeking enhancement of compensation, the
petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard Smt.Manjula learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Shri Nagaraj R.C., learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.C.Seetharama
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the medical evidence placed through
PW.2-Dr.Venkateshmurthy speaks that the petitioner
has suffered 17% whole body disability, the Tribunal
has not awarded compensation towards future loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
income and loss of income during laid up as the
petitioner being a Government servant has applied
leave. The compensation awarded under different
heads is on the lower side and sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsels for insurance
companies have contended that the petitioner is a
Government servant and he was under hospitalization
only for 5 days. Post treatment he has resumed his
work, he is drawing the higher salary than as he was
drawing before the accident. There is no future loss of
income, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the same.
No evidence is placed before the Tribunal to explain
the number of days that petitioner has taken leave so
as to claim the loss of income during laid up. The
compensation awarded is proportionate to the nature
of injuries sustained. It is also contended that no bank
will offer interest at 9% p.a. in the year 2013, the
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
Tribunal without assigning any reason awarded higher
rate of interest and it has to be reduced to 6% p.a.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for
parties and perused the records.
8. The accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal
has fastened the liability against 3rd respondent-
National Insurance Company. The insurance company
has already satisfied the award of the Tribunal. Hence,
the only issue is regarding quantum of compensation.
9. The accident is of the year 2013, the
petitioner is a Government servant, aged 39 years. He
was under hospitalization for 5 days and was operated
for his fracture of right femur. PW.2-
Dr.Venkateshmurthy is examined to explain the whole
body disability. Since the petitioner was already
resumed the job and earning higher salary than before
the accident, there is no loss of future income. No
evidence is placed before the Tribunal to explain how
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
many days that the petitioner has taken leave so as to
award compensation. The medical bills constitutes a
sum of Rs.1,13,755/-, the medical evidence speaks of
requirement of Rs.60,000/- for removal of implant.
10. Having regard to the nature of injuries, age
and avocation, it is proper to assess Rs.40,000/-
towards pain and suffering, medical expenses of
Rs.1,13,755/-, loss of amenities and discomfort at
Rs.40,000/-, future medical expenses at Rs.30,000/-,
towards food & nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges at Rs.15,000/-. Thus, in all the
petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,38,755/- as against
Rs.1,82,780/-, thereby enhancement of Rs.55,975/-
rounded off to Rs.56,000/-. It is the just compensation
that the petitioner is entitled to, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
11. Adverting to the arguments of learned
counsel for the insurance company that in the year
2013, no bank will offer interest at the rate of 9% p.a.,
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
but the Tribunal did not offer any explanation for
awarding interest at 9% p.a. Since the insurance
company has not preferred any appeal, it is not proper
to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal. But the
enhanced compensation, shall carry interest at 6% per
annum.
12. In view of the above discussion, the 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.56,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realisation;
(iv) The respondent No.3-National Insurance
Company shall deposit enhanced
NC: 2024:KHC:35910
compensation amount along with accrued
interest within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment;
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM
