Karnataka High Court
Raghunatha Murthy vs Samuel on 16 February, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
M.F.A. No.1800/2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
Raghunatha Murthy
S/o. Siddalinga Murthy,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.1610, E-Block,
6th Main Road, 2nd Stage,
Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-560 010. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Basavaraj H.T, Adv.)
AND:
1. Samuel S/o. Krishna,
No.164-D, Jyothipuram,
F.C.I. Main Road,
D.V. Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 016.
2. The United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.484/2,
Sadhu Chinnamma Building,
2nd Floor,
S.D.M. Temple Road,
Kumbara Street Cross,
Opp: Syndicate Bank,
M.F.A. NO.1800/2013
2
K.R. Puram,
Bangalore-560 036. ...Respondents
(By Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao Advocate for R-2;
R-1 Notice dispensed with V/o dated:09.06.2014)
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:22.11.2012 passed in
MVC No.2744/2011 on the file of XI Additional Judge, Court
of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court
made the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal', for short), by its judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 in MVC No.2744/2011.
M.F.A. NO.1800/20133
2. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal.
3. Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal. M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 4
6. The present appeal being the claimant's appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross- objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re-analyzed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. After analyzing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:
M.F.A. NO.1800/20135
Amount (Rs.) Pain and suffering 40,000-00 Loss of income during treatment 25,554-00 period Medical expenses 57,400-00 Loss of future earning NIL Loss of amenities 20,000-00 Attendant charges, conveyance, 5,000-00 nourishment and diet etc Future medication 12,000-00 Total 1,59,954-00
8. Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submitted that the Tribunal was at error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of future earning. It ignored the evidence of PW-2, the doctor, to the effect that the appellant had sustained 25% disability.
9. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company in his arguments submitted that the evidence of claimant clearly goes to show that even after the accident and alleged disability, M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 6 the claimant is still continuing in his job and getting the same salary with no reduction. As such, there is no loss of income the question of compensation under the head of 'future loss of income', does not arise.
10. The appellant, as an injured, in the Tribunal, has stated that due to injuries sustained by him in the accident which was said to be fracture of both bones of right leg, he has sustained partial disability. In his support, he has also examined one doctor as PW-2, who has deposed to the effect that he has examined the injured and assessed the disability. The disability of the injured is at 50% to the right lower limb. According to him, it comes to 25% to the whole body. Though the doctor had stated that the alleged disability would come in the way of working of the claimant as Civil Engineer, but no where he has stated that the injured was M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 7 disabled to work as a Civil Engineer or that in no manner it affects his efficiency or income.
Added to this, the total monthly emoluments certificate said to have been issued by the employer of the claimant and got produced and marked by claimant himself as at Ex.P-10 clearly goes to show that, even after the accident and alleged sustaining of injuries, the claimant is continuing in the same job and there is no whisper in the said salary certificate over any reduction of his salary. Considering this aspect and also the judgment in the case of Shri Subhash -vs- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager and others, reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439, the Tribunal has rightly held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the alleged disability has affected the future income of the injured, he is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 8 future income. I do not find any error in the said finding of the Tribunal. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting compensation under the head of loss of future income is not sustainable.
11. Even though the appellant did not canvass arguments on the enhancement of compensation awarded under the other heads, but considering the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, i.e., towards pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of amenities, the same are reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
However, with regard to the attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment and diet etc., considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the length of laid up period due to the injuries and the requirement of an attendant to attend the injured M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 9 during the said period, I am of the view that the said amount deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-.
Towards future medication, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/-. PW-2 - Doctor in his evidence has stated that the injured required a sum of Rs.30,000/- as surgical expenses. The Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for not accepting the surgical expenses of the claimant. But, the say of PW-2 regarding the estimation is without any reasoning, as such, I am of the view that though the said evidence cannot be accepted in its entirety, but it cannot be confined only to a sum of Rs.12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. As such, the same deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
M.F.A. NO.1800/201310
12. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads.
13. Thus, in total the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Court of Small Causes, and MACT Bangalore City (SCCH-12), in MVC No.2744/2011 by its judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.1,59,954/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.15,000/-, thus fixing the total compensation M.F.A. NO.1800/2013 11 at Rs.1,74,954/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four only).
The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and the terms regarding deposit of the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.
Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE mr