Karnataka High Court
Mohan Reddy Kbv vs H K Suresh on 23 July, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD 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.8100 OF 2007 (MV)
Between:
Mohan Reddy KBV,
S/o. Lakshmi Reddy,
Age: 38 years,
R/at. No.385,
Muneshwara temple street,
Sarakki, J.P.Nagar I Phase,
Bangalore.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Harish.H.V, Advocate)
And :
1. H.K.Suresh,
S/o. Kullegowda,
Age: 31 years,
R/at. No.39, 2nd main Road,
Sonahalli, Vivekanagar,
Bangalore.
2. M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.,
V.607, 6th Floor, East wing,
Raheja Towers, M.G.Road,
Bangalore-1.
3. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
2
No.25, Shankarnarayana Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-1.
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
(Policy Cover Note No.987575
valid from 7-3-2005 to 6-3-2006)
...Respondents
(By Sri. B.A.Ramakrishna, Advocate for R3;
Notice to R1 & R2 is dispensed with v/o. dated 27/10/2009)
*******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated: 06/01/2007 passed in MVC No.
4004/2005 on the file of the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3,
Bangalore, (SCCH-3), partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation
with 12% interest.
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 is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 06/01/2007 passed in MVC No. 4004/2005 by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- 3, Bangalore, (SCCH-3), (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).
2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `99,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., 3 from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of `5,00,000/-, 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 37 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 8.15 a.m., on 6.4.2005, while he was going on his motor cycle on St. Marks Road, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the car bearing No.KA.03.MD.4854 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed again him, due to which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries.
Immediately, he has been shifted to Hospital, where he has taken treatment as inpatient for 15 days and thereafter taken bed rest and follow up treatment. It is further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and on 4 account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body due to which he has developed loss of memory, nervousness, giddiness and frequent headache. 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 `99,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for third respondent-Insurer.
7. After perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. The Tribunal, after assessing oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the nature of injuries sustained by him, has rightly awarded a sum of `6,500/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills produced and `37,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. Therefore, interference by this Court does not call for.
8. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, towards loss of amenities and towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and therefore, it needs to be modified. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that, in 6 the accident, appellant has sustained head injury with left frontotempotral subdural haematoma which is serious in nature, for that, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 15 days, during the said period, he might have spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and on the advise of the Doctor he might have taken bed rest for two months. Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has deposed that, due to the said injuries appellant has developed loss of memory, nervousness, giddiness and frequent headache and assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body and we accept the same. It is permanent in nature and he has to suffer this disability through out his life, due to which, he has lost his amenities and enjoyment in life. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at `12,500/- per month as per salary certificate-Ex.P16 and we accept the same. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of `30,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of `25,000/-; 7 `50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life instead of `25,000/-, `10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges instead of `5,000/-. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of `1,34,000/- instead of `99,000/- and the break- up is as follows:
Towards pain and sufferings ` 30,000/-
Towards medical expenses ` 6,500/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing food ` 10,000/-
and attendant charges
Towards loss of income during the ` 37,500/-
period of treatment
Towards loss of amenities ` 50,000/-
Total ` 1,34,000/-
9. 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 06/01/2007 passed in MVC No. 4004/2005 by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Bangalore, (SCCH-
3), stands modified, awarding the compensation of `1,34,000/- instead of `99,000/-. There would be an 8 enhancement of `35,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation.
The third respondent- Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `35,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date 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*