Karnataka High Court
Sri. Lakshman Rao vs Sri. Satish P on 9 August, 2018
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO.4658/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O LATE NANJUNDA RAO
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O NO.133, THANDAG(A)
TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR-572 224.
. . . APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. SURESH M LATUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SATISH.P
S/O SAMBASIVA RAO
R/O NO.451, 2ND MAIN
B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT
MARATH HALLI
BENGALURU-560 037.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.89, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 068.
. . . RESPONDENTS
2
( BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNA GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:14.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3511/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU 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
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.3.2016 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-8) in MVC 3511/2014, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 16.11.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. when the claimant along with others were traveling in a car bearing Registration No. KA-02-D-7980 and when they reached near four road junction on Bangalore to Palamaner road, the driver of the car bearing 3 Registration No.KA-03-MF-3478 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car in which the claimant and others was traveling. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital and later he was shifted to St. Johns Hospital, Bengaluru. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW-3 and submitted certain documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has examined two witness and produced one document. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,40,994/- with interest at 8% p.a. The claimant being aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Only contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant has sustained left hemi paresis acute on chornic SDH hypertension. Immediately after the accident, the 4 claimant was shifted to Government Hospital and treated for 2 days as inpatient, and later he was shifted to St. Johns Hospital and treated for 10 days. Since, the appellant has not examined the doctor, the Tribunal is not justified in not granting any compensation under the category of "loss of future earnings". Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant is simple in nature. Moreover, the claimant has not examined the doctor to assess the disability suffered by the claimant. Hence, the Tribunal considering all these aspects has rightly awarded the compensation as aforementioned. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
5
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 16.11.2013. As per the wound certificate, Ex.P-18, the claimant has sustained sutured wounds over forehead measuring 5 cm and 6 cm in length. The discharge summary Ex.P-19, reveals that the claimant has suffered left hemi paresis acute on chronic SDH hypertension, and he underwent left parietal craniotomy and SDH evacuation on 19.1.2014. Bone flap with titanium implants.
7. The claimant has not examined the doctor to assess the whole body disability suffered by him. Therefore, he is not entitled for compensation under the category of "loss of future earnings". Nevertheless, considering the nature of injuries, duration of treatment, the discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in his life, it is just and 6 reasonable to grant an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.
8. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.
9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the appellant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM