Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Hulleppa Mehtre vs The Divisional Controller, Nekrtc ... on 13 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
MFA NO. 31426 OF 2011 (MV)
C/w
MFA NO. 31427 OF 2011 (MV)
MFA NO. 31426 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Santosh S/o Hulleppa Mehtre,
Age: 31 years, Occ: Driver now Nill,
R/o Hallikhed-B, Now at Naubad,
Bidar.
... Appellant
[By Sri. Basavaraj R.Math, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Divisional Controller,
N.E.K.R.T.C. Bidar.
Division Bidar.
... Respondents
[By Sri Santosh Biradar, Advocate]
This appeal is filed U/S 173(1) of M.V. Act
against the judgement and award dated 03.02.2011
2
passed in MVC No.196/2009 on the file of the
Presiding Officer FTC-I and Addl. M.A.C.T. at Bidar
partly allowing the claim petition and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
MFA NO. 31427 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Sunny S/o Sharanappa Kittikar,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Hallikhed-B, Now at Naubad,
Bidar.
... Appellant
[By Sri. Basavaraj R.Math, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Divisional Controller,
N.E.K.R.T.C. Bidar.
Division Bidar.
... Respondents
[By Sri Santosh Biradar, Advocate]
This appeal is filed U/S 173(1) of M.V. Act
against the judgement and award dated 03.02.2011
passed in MVC No.197/2009 on the file of the
Presiding Officer FTC-I and Addl. M.A.C.T. at Bidar
partly allowing the claim petition and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
These appeals coming for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
3
JUDGEMENT
These appeals by the claimants are filed seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The facts reveal that when the appellants were travelling on a motorcycle, a bus bearing registration No. KA.38/F-459 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Thereby they fell down and sustained injuries. They were treated in the hospital and made a claim for compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony, medical expenses, loss of income etc.
3. The Tribunal clubbed both the matters and permitted the parties to lead common evidence. PW 1 and 2 were examined and in their evidence Ex.P-1 to P-6 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW 1.
4. The Tribunal after appreciating evidence granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- in MVC No. 196/2009 (MFA 4 No.31426/2011). A sum of Rs.12,000/- was granted in MVC No.197/2009(MFA No.31427/2011). Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants are before this Court in appeal.
5. With the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
6. As both the matters arise out of same accident, they are considered together for disposal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side for the reason that in one case the appellant suffered fracture, whereas in the other case, there is head injury. Therefore, he seeks enhanced compensation on each of the heads.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award and submits that compensation granted is just and reasonable.
5MFA No. 31426/2011:
The appellant has suffered (1) compound fracture with displaced wound over left elbow (2) Deep lacerated wound on right thigh and (3) Multiple abrasion over forehead, back and chest. That apart he has incurred medical expenses and suffered loss of income during the laid up period. The Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- on all these heads. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries suffered, I think compensation of Rs.20,000/- for pain, suffering, mental agony is just and reasonable. To heal up the compound fracture, I think atleast three months is required. Therefore, assessing the income at Rs.4,500/- as the accident is of the year 2008, the appellant is entitled to Rs.13,500/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. He has spent medical expenses for the treatment and taking into consideration the nature of the fracture suffered, the probable period of treatment a sum of Rs.7,500/- is granted towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. Therefore the appellant is 6 entitled to a sum of Rs.41,000/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to Rs.26,000/- with interest at 6%. MFA No. 31427 31427/2011:
The appellant has suffered as many as three injuries, they are (1) Head injury with contusion over left temporo parietal region (2) Blunt injury over right side of the abdomen and (3) Multiple contusion over the chest and both lower limbs. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, particularly that he suffered head injury, I think interest of justice will be met if he is granted a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony. A sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Hence he is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,000/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.12,000/-, the appellant is entitled to additional sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 6%.7
Consequently both the appeals are allowed in part. The appellant in MFA No. 31426/2011 is entitled to compensation of Rs.26,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas the appellant in MFA No.31427/2011 is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Sri Santosh Biradar, Advocate is permitted to file vakalat in MFA No. 31426/2011 within 15 days from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK