Karnataka High Court
Jayaram S/O Vasu Poojary vs Balakrishna Poojary S/O Rama Poojary on 26 July, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
M.F.A.No.9023 OF 2007 (MV)
Between:
Jayaram,
S/o. Vasu Poojary,
Aged about 27 years,
Gundinajalu House,
Manchi village,
Bolanthoor Post, Bantwal Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate)
And :
1. Balakrishna Poojary,
S/o. Rama Poojary,
Major,
Vittukodi House,
Sajipanadi Village & Post,
Bantwal Taluk,
D.K.,
2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office, II Floor,
Ganesh Building, B.C.Road,
Bantwal Taluk, D.K.,
2
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
...Respondents
(By Sri. A.N.Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R2;
R1 served)
*******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated: 29/12/2006 passed in MVC
No.841/2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Hearing this day,
N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29/12/2006 passed in MVC No.841/2003 by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short), on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.
2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `68,500/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against the 3 claim made by the appellant for a sum of `4,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellant claims to be aged about 23 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 11.00 a.m., on 18.5.2003, while the appellant was walking on extreme side of the road at Kalladka on NH48, at that time, the driver of the Scooter bearing No.KA.20.H.8054 came in a rash and negligent manner from B.C. Road and dashed against him. Due to which, he sustained fracture of his left lower leg and injuries on foot.
Immediately, he has been taken to Omega Hospital at Mangalore, where he has taken treatment as inpatient from 18.5.2003 to 23.5.2003. It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries 4 sustained him, he suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 30% to the left lower limb as per disability certificate Ex.P7. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum `68,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation.
5. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for second respondent-Insurer.
5
7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the occurrence of the accident and resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal after assessing oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the nature of injuries sustained by him, has awarded a sum of `18,500/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills produced, `12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, `10,000/- towards loss of amenities and `25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which is just and proper and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
8. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and therefore, it needs to be modified. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding 6 any compensation towards loss due to disability and therefore, it needs to be awarded.
9. It is not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant as referred above, he has taken treatment as inpatient from 18..2003 to 23.5.2003, during the said period, he might have suffered pain and agony and spent considerable amount towards conveyance and other incidental charges. Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Doctor has deposed that, appellant has wasting of left lower limb, painful stiffness of left knee and left ankle joints and chronic ostromities of upper end of left tibia and due to which, he cannot run and walk fast and cannot do hard manual work and assessed the disability at 30% to the left lower limb and issued disability certificate as per Ex.P7, which is permanent in nature and he has to suffer this disability through out his life and it would affect his working capacity and he has lost his amenities and enjoyment in life. But the Tribunal has failed to consider all these 7 aspects while awarding compensation. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of `10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges instead of `3,000/- and `40,000/- towards loss due to disability. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of `1,15,500/- instead of `68,500/-. There would be an enhancement of `47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29/12/2006 passed in MVC No.841/2003 by the Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, stands modified, awarding the compensation of `47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date 8 of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
The entire enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*