Karnataka High Court
Amaresh vs Mahantesh on 3 July, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4706/2008 (MV)
BETWEEN
AMARESH
S/O.AYYANAGOUDA @ AYYAPPA RAMSHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:CLERK IN GARAGE NOW NIL,
R/O.NAGUR, HUNAGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
..... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANKAR RANGAREJI, ADV.)
AND
1. MAHANTESH
S/O.SUBHAS HOSUR,
AGED 38 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/AT.WARD-2, SHETTAR PET,
ILKAL, HUNAGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
:2:
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELGAUM.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJESH RAJNAL, ADV. FOR
M/S. LEXPLEXUS FOR R-2
R1- SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE LOWER COURT AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.1.2008 IN MVC NO.23/2005 PASSED BY THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.II,
BAGALKOT AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
SUITABLY, IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant-claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is against the judgment and award dated 17.01.2008, passed in M.V.C. No.23/2005, on the file of M.A.C.T.-II, Bagalkot whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.29,800/- together with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is preferred. :3:
2. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for appellant-claimant and the respondent- insurance company. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is inadequate, that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under other heads such as attendant charges, conveyance charges, loss of income during the period of treatment and loss of amenities and therefore, he prayed to modify the award.
4. Learned counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record has awarded a sum of Rs.29,800/- as compensation which is just and proper and no interference is called for. :4:
5. Upon hearing submissions of both the learned counsel and upon going through the entire material placed on record, the only point that arise for my determination is as under:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
6. Perusal of the Ex.P-6 wound certificate would go to show that the claimant sustained depressed fracture of frontal bone and injury over the nose apart from abrasion over the right leg for which the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/-. It goes without saying that the depressed fracture of frontal bone is a serious injury. Having regard to the nature of injuries, in my view, a sum of Rs.30,000/- would be just compensation under the head injury, pain and suffering as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.19,800/- towards medical expenses taking into :5: consideration the medical bills produced by the claimant.
8. So far as the attendant charges are concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Having regard to the nature of injuries, it goes without saying that he was in need of service of an attendant at least for a period of one month. As such, Rs.3,000/- is awarded under the head attendant charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per day.
9. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head conveyance charges. I deem it just and proper on my part to award an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards conveyance charges.
10. Further the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of income during the period of treatment. The nature of injuries suffered by the claimant are such that he must have been incapacitated :6: from attending to his work at least for a period of two months and thereby he lost his earnings at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. for a period of 2 months. So an amount of Rs.6,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment.
11. Further an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities.
12. The question of awarding any amount under the head future loss of earnings on account of disability does not arise, since the claimant has not at all examined the doctor to speak about the disability.
13. The appellant-claimant is held to be entitled for compensation under the various heads as under:
Rs.
Injury, pain and suffering 30,000/-
Medical expenses 19,800/-
Attendant charges 3,000/-
Conveyance charges 1,000/-
Loss of income during
the period of treatment 6,000/-
:7:
Loss of amenities 5,000/-
Total 64,800/-
14. Thus, the appellant-claimant has been held to be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.64,800/- as against Rs.29,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 17.01.2008, passed in M.V.C. No.23/2005 by the M.A.C.T-
II, Bagalkot stands modified. The appellant- claimant has been awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
(iii) The respondent-insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In the event of deposit, the :8: entire enhanced compensation together with interest shall be released to the appellant- claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa