Karnataka High Court
Dr Narasimha N vs M/S Hdfc Chubb General Insurance on 17 February, 2014
Bench: N.K.Patil, Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.2410/2008 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Dr. Narasimha. N
S/o Sri. Devaru Bhatta
Aged about 48 years
R/a No.3, 4th 'B' Cross
Chikkabommasandra
GKVK Post,
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore - 64 .. APPELLANT
(By Sri. Rajanna, Adv.)
AND:
1. M/s.HDFC CHUBB General Insurance
Co. Ltd., and another
# 11, 3rd Floor,
Embassy Classic
Vittal Mallya Road
Bangalore
Represented by its Manager.
2. K.N. Manjunath
Major
R/a Shankara Nilaya,
2
Kodige Halli,
Near Vinayaka Vidya Kendra
Shankaranagara Post
Bangalore - 62. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H.S. Lingaraj, Adv. for R-1;
Sri. K.R. Ramesh, Adv. for R-2)
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV ACT
against the Judgment & Award dated 21.03.2006 passed in
MVC No.4796/2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judge,
Member, MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH NO.6), partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day,
N.K. PATIL J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 21st March 2006 insofar as it relates to M.V.C.No.4796/2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judge & M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH No.6) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. The Tribunal by its impugned common judgment and award, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the 3 date of petition till realization, on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The claimant assailing the quantum of compensation as inadequate and requires enhancement, has presented the instant appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case on hand are that, the appellant/injured claimant was aged about 47 years, working as Associate Professor at Agriculture Extension Department (UAS), GKVK and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Be that as it may. That on 27.1.2005 at 12.15 p.m., when he was riding his scooter from Baptist Hospital towards Hebbal on BB Road, at that time, the driver of Cheverolet car bearing registration No.KA-04/MH-5577 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment. He took treatment 4 for two months and also undergone surgery. He sustained following injuries:
1. Concussive head injury;
2. Fracture of neck and shaft of right femur;
3. Comminuted fracture of right scapula;
4. Lateral fracture of right clavicle;
5. Fracture of right 2nd, 3rd rib and
6. Lacerated wound 9 cm long on the parietal region.
The appellant also examined the Doctor as PW-3 who, in turn, after clinical examination of the appellant has assessed 35% disability to the lower limb, 20% to the right upper limb and 25% to the whole body. Further, it is the case of the appellant that, he spent huge amount towards medical, conveyance and other attendant charges. Taking all these aspects into consideration, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation from the respondents/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 5
4. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, by awarding Rs.40,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering; Rs.2,18,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and nourishment; Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.35,000/- towards loss of future amenities in life. In all, it has awarded compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
5. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the injured claimant/appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.Rajanna, at the outset, is 6 that, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation towards injury, pain and suffering, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of amenities and discomfort in life and the same is liable to be enhanced. To substantiate the same, he seeks to point out that, the injured claimant/appellant has undergone treatment for two months and also undergone one surgery. He spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses and that he has to suffer the disability throughout his life. Apart from working as Associate Professor at Agriculture Extension Department (UAS), GKVK, he was also an international dancer. It was a hobby and profession for him. Due to the accident, he cannot continue his dancing profession and is not in a position to give his dance programme abroad. He has to suffer the permanent disability throughout his life. This relevant aspect of the matter is not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that, taking all these aspects into 7 consideration, reasonable compensation may be awarded by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for first respondent/insurer interalia seeks to substantiate that the Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and also the date of accident and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, has awarded a reasonable compensation. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
8. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and first respondent/insurer and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"8
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.1.2005. Further it is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged 47 years and was working as Associate Professor at Agriculture Extension Department (UAS), GKVK and also he was an professional dancer. He used to give dance programmes in India and also abroad. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He is not in a position to do the work as he was doing earlier on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. He sustained grievous injures and also fractures and has spent reasonable amount towards medical, conveyance and attendant charges. He might have also suffered pain and agony during the period of treatment. He has to suffer the disability throughout his life and he may not be in a position to give dance programme as he was doing earlier on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident.
9
10. Hence, we deem it proper to award Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.40,000/-; Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs.10,000/-; Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness as against Rs.35,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2,18,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses, which, in our opinion, is just and reasonable.
11. Thus, the appellant is entitled for compensation, the break-up of which is as under:
Sl.No. Description Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses 2,18,000/-
3. Loss of future amenities 75,000/-
4. Future medical expenses 30,000/-
5. Conveyance, Nourishing 20,000/-
food and Attendant charges
TOTAL 4,03,000/-
10
Hence, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,03,000/- as against Rs.3,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby it is enhanced by Rs.70,000/-.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 21st March 2006 insofar as it relates to M.V.C.No.4796/2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judge & M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH No.6) is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs.4,03,000/- as against Rs.3,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of compensation by Rs.70,000/- excluding interest for the delayed period of 521 days in filing the appeal.
The first respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period 11 of 521 days in filing the appeal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The entire enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.
Office to draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-