Karnataka High Court
Sri R Pattabhiraman vs Sri C R Venkatesh Guptha on 5 November, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
M.F.A.No.8546 OF 2008 (MV)
Between:
Sri. R.Pattabhiraman,
S/o. Late Ratnam,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at. No.23, I Floor,
Mutyalamma Street,
Bangalore.
...Appellant
(By Sri. M.R.Kumara Swamy, Advocate)
And :
1. Sri. C.R.Venkatesh Guptha,
S/o. C.S.Ramadass Guptha,
R/at. No.8, Nandanavanam E Street,
Jogupalya, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore.
2. The Manager,
The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.198, Manjunatha Complex,
2nd Floor, C.M.H. Road,
Bangalore-38.
...Respondents
(By Sri. A.Ravishankar, Advocate for R2;
R1 served)
2
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated: 04/01/2008 passed in MVC No.
6369/2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of
Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore (SCCH-13), partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Hearing this day,
N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 04/01/2008 passed in MVC No. 6369/2006 by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-13), ( for short ' Tribunal').
2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `2,34,800/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of `25,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are:
3
The appellant claims to be aged about 60 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and doing security service at Black Belt at Indiranagar and earning `6,000/- per month. He met with an accident that occurred on 26.7.2006 at about 2.20 p.m. while he was walking on the left side of Keningston road near Dobhighat on account of the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the TVS XL bearing No>KA.03.EJ.4278 and sustained diffuse cerebral contusion with subarachnoid hemorrhage, left frontal chronic subdural haematoma, DVT right lower limb. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he took first aid treatment at Lakeside hospital, then shifted to NIMHANS and then to Mallya hospital, where, he took treatment as inpatient, underwent surgery of left frontal chronic subdural haematoma and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.
4. It is the further case of the appellant that he spent considerable amount towards medical and other expenses and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him as referred above, he has suffered 4 permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
5. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum `2,34,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit
6. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal through his natural guardian, father, seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel for Insurer.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the 5 Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at `3,000/- per month which is on lower side and it needs to be modified. It is the case of the appellant that he was aged about 60 years working as Security service at Black Belt Indiranagar. Having regard to the age, occupation and the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the appellant at `3,500/- per month instead of `3,000/- per month and the appropriate Multiplier is '9' instead of '10' adopted by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.
9. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant as referred above, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 20 days, undergone surgery, and on the advice of the Doctor he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment for six months and during the said period he might have undergone pain and agony, he might have incurred loss as he could not have 6 attended his work regularly. Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has deposed that, appellant has suffered disability at 15% to the whole body, which is permanent in nature, he has to suffer this disability through out his life and it would affect his happiness, comforts and amenities in future life. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of `20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, `21,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, `30,000/- towards loss of amenities, comforts and happiness in future life due to disability and `56,700/- (`3,500/- x 12 x 9 x 15/100) towards loss of future earnings. However, a sum of `60,000/- towards injury pain and sufferings and `81,800/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and interference by this Court is not called for. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of `2,69,500/- instead of `2,34,800/- and the break- up is as follows:
7
Towards pain and sufferings ` 60,000/-
Towards medical expenses ` 81,800/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing food ` 20,000/-
and attendant charges
Towards loss of income during treatment ` 21,000/-
period
Towards loss of amenities, due to ` 30,000/-
disability
Towards loss of future earnings ` 56,700/-
Total ` 2,69,500/-
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 04/01/2008 passed in MVC No. 6369/2006 by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-13), stands modified, awarding the compensation of `2,69,500/- instead of `2,34,800/-. There would be an enhancement of `34,700/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `34,700/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
8
Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, the entire enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of appellant (*).
Draw the award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
tsn* JUDGE *deleted vide chamber order dt.01/02/2013.