Karnataka High Court
Pandi Suvarna vs Ravi Poojary on 11 October, 2013
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
M.F.A.No.8404 OF 2012 (MV)
Between:
Pandi Suvarna,
Aged about 68 years,
S/o. Late Raju Poojary,
Rep. by his wife,
Smt. Sarojini Poojary,
Aged about 61 years,
W/o. Pandi Suvarna,
R/at. Bontra House,
Parappady, Nitte Village,
Karkala Taluk-574 110.
...Appellant
(By Sri. H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate)
And :
1. Ravi Poojary,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o. late Chandu Poojary,
R/at. Padumane, Parappady,
Nitte Village, Karkala Taluk-574 110.
2. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Srinivas Complex, A.S.Road,
Karkala Taluk-574 104.
...Respondents
*******
This M.F.A. is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated: 07/07/2012 passed in MVC No.
2
327/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkala, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 07/07/2012 passed in MVC No.327/2011, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkala, (for short 'Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `1,07,827/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as against the claim of `10,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 67 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 27.8.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. when the appellant was walking with his wife Smt. Sarojini by the left side of Parappady-Barady public road 3 near Ermanjele palla of Nitte village, at that time, the driver of Bajja AutoRickshaw bearing No.KA.20.B.3477 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him from his backside. Due to which, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Nitte, thereafter, after taking first aid, he was shifted to Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital, Deralakatte, Mangalore, where he had taken treatment as inpatient for 19 days, undergone surgery and thereafter, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he 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 appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other 4 material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of `1,07,827/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through Ex.P2 an submitted that, on account of the said injuries, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 19 days, during the said period, he has undergone pain and agony, spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. Further, he submits that the 5 income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex.P2-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 19 days and during that period he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental charges. The Doctor, PW2 who has treated the appellant has produced Ex.C1-case sheet, but it does not reflect that because of injuries, he is permanently disabled or there is any certificate 6 showing that he is suffering from any disability. Further, it emerges that the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him, the pain and sufferings undergone by him during that period, assessing his income of the appellant `3,500/- per month and after assigning valid reasons, has awarded a sum of `25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, `35,027/- towards medical expenses, `10,800/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, `7,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period and `30,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and inconvenience, in all, `1,07,827/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, which is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the judgment and award passed 7 by the Tribunal. Nor I find any justification or good grounds as such made out by the appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE tsn*