Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs P.R. Yogesh on 7 December, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.No.5939/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN
LAKSHMAMMA
W/O H HANUMANTHAIAH
S/O LATE RENUKAPPA H K
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
LAKKENAHALLI
KULUVANAHALLI POST
THYMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BOPANNA B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. P R YOGESH
S/O RAMANNA POOJARI
NO.5, UMAY GARDEN APARTMENT
BALAJI LAYOUT, DODDABANASAWADI
BANGALORE-560 043
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO.24, 1ST FLOOR, CLASSIC BUILDING
RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DT. 29.05.2019, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.2557/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 25.03.2015 passed in MVC No.2557/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on account of the accident, the claimant had sustained head injury and she was at the stage of coma and she was taken to the hospital and subjected for surgery and gradually she was recovered and discharged from the hospital and thereafter she was advised for follow up treatment and the doctor who was examined before the Tribunal assessed the disability of 40 to 50% to the whole body and the Tribunal has taken 40% disability and taking the 3 income of Rs.6,000/- awarded the compensation of Rs.2,71,600/-. Hence, this appeal is filed questioning the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation taken the income of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.6,500/- as the accident was of the year 2011 and awarded very meager compensation in all the heads hence, it requires interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation taking the disability at 40% hence, it does not require any interference.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that when the injured had sustained head injury and in order to substantiate her case, relied upon the document of wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P9 wherein it shows that 4 injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and admitted to the hospital on 20.11.2011 and subjected to the surgery on 21.11.2011 and discharged on 30.12.2011 and in all, about 41 days she was an inpatient and surgery was conducted. The claimant in order to substantiate the same, examined the doctor as PW3 who deposed that the injured was admitted to the hospital on 20.11.2011 and she was in coma and she had right hand and right leg weakness and CT scan showed left temporal contusion and right temporal contusion with mid line shift towards right side and she was subjected to the surgery of left fronto temporal craniotomy and evacuation of blood clot and she was managed with ventilator and gradually recovered and discharged on 30.12.2011. It is also the evidence of PW3 that she was advised for follow up on 07.03.2012 and she found weakness of right hand and right leg and was unable to understand and speak on 11.07.2013 and she was advised assessment of speech which was done and she still had speech disturbances on 17.01.2015 she was seen last she was able to walk she was able to lift both her hand equality. However, speech disturbances in the form of inability in understand and repeat what was told and assessed the mental disability of 40 to 5 50% of whole body. In the cross-examination of PW3, except suggesting the mental disability of 40-50%, nothing is elicited with regard to the nature of injury and disability to the particular injury hence, the Tribunal has taken 40% disability to the whole body.
7. Having considered the material on record particularly the evidence of PW3-doctor it is very clear that accident was occurred on 20.11.2011 and discharged on 30.12.2011 and after the discharge, almost after 3 months and 6 months, she was advised for follow up treatment and again on 17.01.2015 i.e., after almost 3½ years also, she was assessed and she was able to walk and able to lift both the hands and assessed the disability of 40 to 50% to the whole body. When such evidence is available on record, when she was unable to do any work, the Tribunal taken the disability of 40% appears to be on lesser side and ought to have taken 50% as assessed by the doctor. In the case on hand, adding of future prospectus does not arise since the injured was aged about 62 years.
8. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,01,600/- towards loss of future income and this Court 6 reassessed the income and disability, it comes to Rs.2,73,000/- (6,500x12x7x50%) as against Rs.2,01,600/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period taking income of Rs.6,000/- for a period of 5 months. When the injured was in the hospital for a period of 41 days and the notional income would be Rs.6,500/-, it is appropriate to calculate for a period of 6 months which comes to Rs.39,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-.
10. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings and when the injured was inpatient for a period of 41 days and also suffered head injury and subjected for surgery, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.75,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-.
11. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards food and nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges and the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-.
12. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of loss of amenities. Having taken note of the nature 7 of the injuries suffered by the injured and the disability of 50% and the claimant has to lead her life with the said disability hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.
13. In all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,72,000/- as against Rs.2,71,600/-.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 25.03.2015 passed in MVC No.2557/2012 is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- as against Rs.2,71,600/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till deposit. 8
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN