Karnataka High Court
Sri S K Manjunath vs Shivabasappa K on 20 September, 2013
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO.6290 OF 2013 (MV)
Between:
Sri. S.K.Manjunath,
S/o. D.S.Muddappa,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o. I Cross, Ravindranagara,
Shimoga City-577 201.
... Appellant
(By Shri. M.V.Maheswarappa, Advocate)
And:
1. Shivabasappa.K,
S/o. Kallappa Pattanad,
Major,
R/o. Veerapu Road,
Yelepeti,
Hubli-580 020.
2. Sri. Shanmukappa,
S/o. Siddappa Gowda,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o. Beside Basavana Temple,
Gadikoppa, Sagar Road,
Shimoga-577 201.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co., Ltd., No.135/5, 2nd Floor,15th Cross,
J.P.Nagar, 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-78.
... Respondents
*****
2
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 17/04/2013 passed in MVC No.
154/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 17th April 2013, passed in MVC No.154/2012, by the Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (for short, 'Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `28,550/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `6,75,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 48 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 8:30 P.M., on 17-09-2011, when the appellant was riding his Motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-14/EA-9831 from Gopi Circle towardsJ.P.N. Road cross in Shimoga City with 3 his wife as pillion rider, near the JPN Road Cross, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-25/P-5372, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained injuries on his right leg, foot and other injuries all over the body and that he had sustained fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal of left foot and the said injury is grievous in nature.
3. It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `6,75,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had 4 come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 17th April, 2013. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `28,550/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri.M.V. Maheswarappa submits that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is very meager and hence, reasonable enhancement may be made under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly. Further, he specifically 5 submitted that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries as stated above, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, and loss of income during treatment etc. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.
7. After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant, it reveals that the Tribunal has after assessing the oral evidence of PW 1 and RW1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P21, has awarded compensation of `28,550/- with 6% interest after recording a finding of fact at paragraphs 16 to 22 of its judgment, i.e. `15,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, `5,550/- towards medical expenses and `8,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The said compensation awarded is just and proper for the reason that as per Ex.P7, the POP slab was applied to the fractured part and itw as 6 removed on 10-10-2011 and the appellant, himself in his cross examination at para 2 has admitted that he has not taken treatment as in-patient in any Hospital. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment undergone by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.
8. Further, the Tribunal has negatived the contention of the appellant towards loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness holding that the appellant has sustained injuries on his right leg, foot and other injuries all over the body and that he sustained fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Metatarsal of left foot and the said injury is grievous in nature and considering the nature of injuries sustained has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Further, it is observed that the appellant has admitted in unequivocal terms that he has not taken treatment as in-patient. He might have taken follow-up treatment. 7 Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, the appellant has admitted in his cross examination that he is still working in the same Company and therefore, he has failed to prove that he has suffered loss of income and that he has also not placed any material to show that he has suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation under loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness.
9. Thus, having regard to the totality of the case on hand, including, the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature of treatment undergone and the clear admission by the appellant himself, I am of the view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation to the appellant under the aforesaid heads for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
8
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*