Karnataka High Court
Meenakshi W/O Swamygoda vs Suresha on 3 March, 2016
Bench: N.K.Patil, Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
M.F.A.No. 3136 of 2012 (MV)
Between:
Meenakshi
W/o. Swamygoda,
Dodda Gopanahalli Village,
Hallimysore Hobli,
Holenarasipura Taluk,
Presently R/at. Doranahalli Village,
Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk.
....Appellant
(By Sri. Kiran Kumar, Advocate)
And:
1. Suresha S/o. Raju,
Kalyadi Sahebara Vattara,
Pension Mohalla,
Hassan.
2. The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Bus Stand Road, Hassan.
....Respondents
(By Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 dispensed with v/o. dated 17/03/2014)
********
2
This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 25/02/2010, passed in MVC
No.572/2009, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hassan, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Admission 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 25/02/2010, passed in MVC No.572/2009, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).
2. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of `2,02,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., `1,97,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of `20,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are:
3
The appellant claims to be aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. She was hale and healthy prior to the accident, doing agricultural operations and getting the income of `6,000/- per month. That on 21.01.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. she was proceeding by walk with her brother-in-law Yuvaraj on the left side of the road and when she came near Anniganahalli, at that time, the rider of bike bearing Reg.No.KA.15.J.3970 came from the hind portion and dashed against her.
Due to which, she sustained injuries. Immediately, she was admitted to the Sharada Nursing Home, where she took treatment as inpatient and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, she has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.
4. It is the further case of the appellant that, she spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, she has suffered permanent disability. 4 Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents.
5. 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 `2,02,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., `1,97,000/- from the date of petition till its realization.
6. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal.
7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and suffering, towards loss of income during treatment period, 5 towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and towards future medical expenses and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted placing reliance on the evidence of the Doctor that, appellant has sustained disability at 70% to the spinal card and both lower limbs. Further, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the appellant reasonably and what is assessed is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably between `4,500/- to `5,000/- per month on the ground that, appellant was aged about 24 years, doing agricultural operations and earning substantially. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out her life, it would affect her earning capacity and now she is not in a position to do her work as she was doing earlier and she requires some amount towards future medical and other incidental expenses But these aspects of the matter have not been 6 considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under different heads. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for R1- insurer, inter- alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, nature and duration of treatment taken by her and therefore, it does not call for interference.
9. After careful consideration of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
7
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex.P6-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellant was aged about 24 years and in the accident she has sustained fracture of traumatic listhesis of lumbar spine L4-5, tenderness of right shoulder, abrasion of right wrist and hematoma right knee. Further, it is the case of the appellant that she was getting the income of `6,000/- per month as she was doing agricultural operations. But she has not produced any documents to prove the same. The Tribunal has assessed the income at `3,000/- per month which is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Having regard to the age and occupation of the appellant and the year of accident, we re-assess her income at `4,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice. On account of which, she has taken 8 treatment as inpatient for 15 days, and Doctor has assessed the disability at 70% to spinal card and both lower limbs and 1/3rd of which, i.e. 23% would be the whole body disability. During the said period, she might have undergone lot of pain and agony, she might have spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses, and as per the advise of the Doctor she might have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment atleast for three months, during the said period, she might have incurred financial loss as she could not have attended her work regularly. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out her life and it would affect her happiness in future life and also affects her earning capacity. As per the evidence of the Doctor, appellant requires a sum of `10,000/- towards future medical expenses and we accept the same. Therefore, the appellant has to be compensated reasonably. The proper multiplier applicable is '18' instead of '17' 9 adopted by the Tribunal since appellant was aged about 24 years as on the date of the accident. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of `40,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against `20,000/-, `13,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period at the rate of `4,500/- per month for three months as against `2,000/-, `2,23,560/- (`4,500/- x 12 x 18 x 23%) towards loss of future earnings as against `1,22,000/-, `30,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness as against `15,000/- and `10,000/- towards future medical expenses as against `5,000/-.
11. The Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding a sum of `30,000/- towards medical expenses and `13,000/- towards conveyance and other incidental expenses and therefore, it does not call for interference.
10
In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of `3,60,060/- instead of `2,02,000/- and the break- up is as follows:
Towards injury, pain and sufferings ` 40,000/-
Towards medical expenses ` 30,000/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing food ` 13,000/-
and attendant charges
Towards loss of income during the ` 13,500/-
period of treatment
Towards loss of amenities ` 30,000/-
Towards loss of future earnings ` 2,23,560/-
Towards future medical expenses ` 10,000/-
Total ` 3,60,060/-
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 25/02/2010, passed in MVC No.572/2009, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, stands modified, awarding the compensation of `3,60,060/-
instead of `2,02,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of `1,58,060/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its 11 realization (excluding interest for the delayed period of 214 days in filing the appeal) The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `1,58,060/- with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed period of 214 days in filing the appeal) from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of `1,58,060/-, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed deposit in the name of the appellant in any nationalized or scheduled or grameena bank, for a period of 5 years and renewable by another 5 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining 50% with proportionate interest released in favour of the appellant immediately. 12
Draw the award, accordingly.
Learned counsel Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy is permitted to file vakalath for respondent No.2 within four weeks.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*