Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Balappa vs Vice Chariman/ Managing Director on 13 July, 2012
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MFA NO.8476/2010 (MV) (GEN)
BETWEEN
RAMESH,
S/O. BALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE.
NOW R/A C/O. R. MANJUNATHA,
S/O. LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
NARASIMHAPETE,
CHINTAMANI TOWN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: K.T. GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
VICE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR,
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
MURSHEEDHABAD,
HYDERABAD,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.)
2
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.05.2010 PASSED
IN MVC NO.17/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, CHINTHAMANI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C. No.17/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC & MACT, Chintamani, dated 27.05.2010.
2. As per the Wound certificate, the injured has suffered seven injuries of which, the doctor has opined that the Injury Nos.3 to 7 are grievous in nature and remaining injuries are simple in nature.
3. The doctor has been examined as PW-2 and 3 who deposed that the injured has suffered 30% disability to the 3
--
whole body. The Tribunal has taken 30% disability to the whole body. But the error committed by the Tribunal is in taking the income of the injured on the basis of the avocation as a business man and real estate agent. The same has not been considered. The injured suffered grievous injuries for which he underwent two surgeries. The same has not been reflected. The compensation awarded under the head 'Pain and suffering' is not with reference to the number of injuries and what has been awarded at Rs.50,000/- is in addition to 'Pain and suffering' also includes 'attendant charges, diet and incidental charges and transportation charges'. Only a sum of Rs.6,000/- is awarded under the head 'Loss of income during treatment period'. The same is lower in side since the injured has taken treatment for about 6 months. Hence, the suitable and just compensation may be awarded.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has justified the Order passed by the Tribunal. By considering the disability @ 30% for awarding the compensation under the head of loss of future income itself is 4
--
on higher side. The same will take care of the other heads. Except his pleadings that he was a real estate business man, no other piece of evidence in support of the said avocation is produced. He has produced Ex.P-5 RTC Extract which does not spell out as to what is the agricultural income and what is the nature of soil whether dry land or wet land. In the absence of the same what has been awarded itself is an error since it goes in contra to the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3355. Hence, it is submitted to dismiss this appeal.
5. Always, the head of loss of future income is to be considered by taking the percentage of disability on the basis of evidence of the doctor and the disability certificate and the said evidence should orient towards the nature of avocation since himself has stated that he is a businessman and he has not stated about how the injuries are affected in reduction of his income. Mere disability itself is not a ground for awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. Even then, the evidence of the doctor has been considered by 5
--
the Tribunal and awarded the compensation. Since the Insurance Company has not proved by some materials, I do not propose to reduce the compensation under the head 'Loss of future income'. Then, considering the wound certificate and number of injuries and period of treatment and surgery underwent, I feel what has been awarded by the Tribunal is lower in side. Three grievous injuries itself has to be compensated by awarding Rs.60,000/- under the head 'Pain and Suffering'.
6. Under the head 'Food and nourishment and attendant charges', another sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The compensation under the head 'loss of earning during laid up period' has to be calculated by taking the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per month for three months treatment period which comes to Rs.13,500/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 6
--
8. No compensation is awarded under the head 'Loss of amenities'. Hence, I propose to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the said head. In all, the claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- which shall carry 6% interest.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNC