Karnataka High Court
Muniyappa vs N Channaveerappa on 24 September, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8110/2011(MV)
BETWEEN:
Muniyappa,
Aged about 26 years
S/o late Munivenkatappa,
Working in Printing Press,
R/at Kumbalahalli Village & Post
Kasaba Hobli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. ... Appellant
(By Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty H, Advocate)
AND:
1. N.Channaveerappa,
Major,
Cholagatta Village,
Madderi Post,
Kolar Taluk and District.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Doom Light Circle,
Kolar
Rep. by its Branch Manager ... Respondents
(By Sri.R.Jaiprakash, Advocate for R-2;
Notice to R-1 is dispensed with v/o dated
29.7.2013)
2
This Appeal is filed Under Section 173(1) of MV
Act against the judgment & award dated 30.07.2011
passed in MVC No.115/2010 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, MACT, Kolar, C/c I Additional District
Judge, MACT, Kolar partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a claimant's appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by MACT, Kolar in MVC No.115/2010 dated 30.07.2011.
2 Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal since records of Tribunal have been secured.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
3
4. Learned Advocate appearing for appellant submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement.
5. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-2 - Insurance Company would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of award in question as also records, it would indicate that accident in question, injuries sustained by the claimant, issuance of policy to offending vehicle are facts which are not in dispute and hence they are not delved upon in this appeal as it would be repetition of facts.
7. As per Ex.P-6 - wound certificate, it would indicate that claimant had sustained following injuries:
(i) Compound fracture of III toe metatarsal fracture of right foot;4
(ii) Compound fracture of proximal phalnyx of IV toe;
(iii) Compound fracture of right proximal phalynx of V toe;
(iv) Cut lacerated wound over II toe measuring 1" x ½" ;
(v) Cut lacerated wound all around the toe with vascular impediment;
(vi) Loss of II nail and nail bed." Claimant was admitted to Amulya Orthopedic Centre, Kolar immediately after the accident and was an inpatient from 22.06.2010 to 28.06.2011. As noticed from Ex.P-47 -
Disability certificate issued by the Doctor, it would indicate that claimant had sustained disability to the lower limb which is assessed at 20% and whole body disability is at 8%. Doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.2. He has stated that there is malunion of proximal phalnyx of IV toe with lateral angulation and non union of proximal phalnyx of little toe and as such, he has opined that there is whole body disability of 8%. Tribunal has taken into 5 consideration said disability and assessed the compensation towards 'loss of future income'.
8. Having accepted the disability as opined by Doctor, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. On account of restriction of flexion and extension of metatarso phelingial joint and there being mal union of fracture, claimant will have to bear with the said deformity through out his life and for said discomfort, there would be loss of amenities in life. Hence, claimant would be entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' and accordingly, it is hereby awarded.
9. Claimant was an inpatient for about 7 days and he would have spent considerable amount towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded is on the lower side. Therefore, additional compensation of Rs.4,000/- if awarded, it would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, it is hereby awarded.
10. Claimant would not have been able to attend to his avocation as DTP operator atleast for a period of (3) three 6 months. However, Tribunal has accepted that claimant would be unable to carry on his work for two months. Considering the nature of injuries, claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,000/- i.e., for one more month towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. Thus, in all, claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.28,000/-.
Hence, for the reasons aforestated, following order is passed:
(1) Appeal is hereby allowed in part. (2) Judgment and award passed by Tribunal in MVC No.115/2010 dated 30.07.2011 is hereby modified and an additional compensation of Rs.28,000/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (3) Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with interest 7 before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (4) Registry is directed to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE *sp