Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Madhusudhan S/O Muninarayana vs Smt Girijamma W/O K R Lokesh on 22 September, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
M.F.A.No.9841/2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M R MADHUSUDHAN,
S/O MUNINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O R SANTHOSH,
NO.142/a, 4TH CROSS,
SUNDAR NAGAR, GOKUL,
BANGALORE - 54.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H S SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
W/O K R LOKESH,
MAJOR,
R/AT KITHAGANAHALLI,
KAPALASANDRA POST,
GULUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG NO.KA-06-2434).
2. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
TGMA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR,
J C ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 101.
(INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING
NO.KA-06-2434)
2
(POLICY NO.8975/2007
VALID FROM 21.12.2006 TO 20.12.2007)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.6428/2007 ON THE FILE OF VI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, BANGALORE CITY, 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
Heard learned counsel Sri H.S.Sathish Kumar for appellant and Sri Srishaila, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company who appeared before court today.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3
3. Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 11.03.2010 passed in MVC No. 6428/2007 by IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru city, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization came to be granted to the petitioner. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation petitioner has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.
4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
5. The substance of the case of the claimant as could be seen from the certified copy of the order is as under:
4
The case of the petitioner is that on 23.04.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. when the petitioner was riding his vehicle on Kunigal Bangalore NH-48 road, near Yentaganahalli bus stop the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06-24434 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle, due to which he sustained grievous injuries Respondents contested the petition. Learned Member was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1 & 2 and documentary evidence of ExP1 to 16 on behalf of petitioner. No oral & documentary evidence is adduced by respondents.
6. Learned counsel Sri H.S.Satish Kumar for the injured would submit that the doctor who had treated the injured petitioner was examined and he has specifically stated that the petitioner sustained 15% of total disability. On considering the aspect of no fracture, the learned Member has proceeded to award 5 global compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The future injury is not assessed and proportionate compensation is not granted. There is no nexus between the compensation and the disability.
7. Learned counsel Sri Srishaila appearing for the Insurance Company would submit except pain and suffering, the other aspects are well attended to and the compensation is granted in a fair and just manner and the petitioner is not entitled for enhanced compensation.
8. The data available is that the petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month; he was employed in Durga Cars and Coach Pvt. Ltd., and after the accident he suffered disablement and also claims that he was terminated from service because of the injury. The petitioner is stated to be working as field supervisor 6 and the salary certificate is also filed as per Ex P9 Which shows petitioner was drawing the salary at Rs.8,000/- per month.
9. In the over all context and circumstances of the case, the doctor has assessed the disability at 18% to the whole body. The injuries stated to have been sustained by the petitioner are left fore arm crush injury and other three injuries and injury no.1 is stated to be grievous. Ex.P-7 Discharge Summary Certificate is marked and the petitioner was treated as inpatient from 23.04.2007 to 24.04.2007.
10. Coming to the pattern of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is that the learned Member has granted medical expenses at R.13,000/-; Rs.19,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. 7
11. On examining the pattern of compensation, it could be seen that non-sustaining of fracture is considered as treating the disability as insignificant. At the same time, when the doctor has deposed 15% total disability and the petitioner who was working as field supervisor with salary of Rs.8,000/-p.m., the compensation could not have been brought to the level of global compensation. The four injuries, one being grievous and the other being crush injury, the compensation awarded towards pain and injury ought to have been considered at Rs.25,000/-, the medical expenses including future medical expenses should have been at Rs.25,000/- and compensation towards loss of amenities should have been at Rs.20,000/-. In so far as loss of future earning, the monthly income should have been treated as Rs.7,000/- considering the age of the petitioner and the year of the accident being 2007, the total disability ought to have been 8 taken at 16% with 18 multiplier in which event the loss of future income comes to Rs.2,41,920/- (Rs.7000X16/100X12X18).
Accordingly the total compensation would be as under:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
2. Medical expenses including Rs. 25,000
future medical expenses
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000
4. Loss of future income Rs. 2,41,920
Total Rs. 3,11,920
Less:Awarded by Tribunal Rs. 40,000
Enhanced compensation Rs.2,71,920
Thus the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,71,920/-.
12. Though the learned Tribunal has granted compensation and rightly allowed the petition in part, it has erred in quantifying the compensation on the lower side.
9
Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 11.03.2010 passed in MVC No. 6428/2007 by IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru city, is set aside and modified by granting enhanced compensation of Rs.2,71,920/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including enhanced compensation with interest @ 6%p.a. within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/