Karnataka High Court
C N Venkatesh S/O C Ninge Gowda vs Suryanarayana Vaidya on 20 July, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO. 5898 OF 2009 (MV)
Between:
C.N.Venkatesh
S/o. C. Ninge Gowda,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No.57, 4th Phase,
3rd Cross, 2nd Main,
Behind Corp. Bank,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-64.
... Appellant
(By Shri. R.Chandrashekar, for Lawyers Net)
And:
1. Suryanarayana Vaidya,
Aged not known,
S/o. Ganapathi Vaidya,
Uddeboranahalli,
Chickmangalore.
2. The Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.25,
Shankaranarayana Building,
Bangalore-1.
... Respondents
(By Shri. L.Sreekanta Rao, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 dispensed with v/o. dated 02/11/2011)
*****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 06/11/2008 passed in MVC
No.8850/2007 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, Court
2
of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
V, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-5), partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 6th November 2008, passed in MVC No.8850/2007, by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-5), (for short, 'Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `3,04,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `8,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 24 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 12:30 P.M, on 15-08-2007, when the appellant was riding his motor cycle from Chikkanayakanahalli to 3 Hassan via Hassan-Arakalgudu Main Road, Konanakindi uproad, near Ranganatha swamy Temple, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-03/MA-1111, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained swelling, tenderness, deformity over right thigh with a wound on mid thigh, swelling, tenderness, deformity over left thigh with a sutured wound on mid thigh, welling, tenderness, deformity over left forearm, loss of teeth, multiple LW on the chest, lower lip. Due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, he took treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where he underwent a surgery for open reduction and closed reduction with fixation of implants.
3. It is his further case that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone severe pain and agony and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental 4 expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
4. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads and therefore, reasonable compensation may be awarded under all the heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
5. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `8,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 6th November, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `3,04,400/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being 5 dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Insurer.
7. After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads. Admittedly, due to the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained the injuries as stated above and as per the X-ray, he has sustained fracture and he was inpatient in the Hospital, for some period. He also under went a surgery for open reduction and closed reduction with fixation of implants. During the treatment period, he would have undergone unsaid pain and agony and also spent reasonable amount towards 6 conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. PW4, Doctor has assessed the disability in respect of both lower limbs and left upper limb at 60% and 20% in respect of whole body. The avocation of Motor winding work, requires long standing, sitting, climbing stairs, walking, riding vehicles, bearing weight. Hence, the permanent whole body disability definitely come in the way of the avocation of the appellant to some extent and there would be reduction in his future earning capacity. The appellant has sustained fracture of femur bone of both the legs and also fracture of left ulna. The appellant being aged about only 24 years, has to endure the permanent disability for the rest of his life and it would be difficult for him to perform his day to day activities, as earlier. Further, having regard to the nature of fracture sustained, I am of the opinion that the appellant would find it difficult to continue his profession. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation of the appellant and nature and duration of treatment, disability and also 7 the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the lower and hence, I deem it fit to award a global compensation of a sum of `60,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 6th November 2008, passed in MVC No.8850/2007, by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-5), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of `60,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `60,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of 8 petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*