Karnataka High Court
Prakash Reddy S/O Kollur Sannappaiah, vs P R Ravindranath S/O B.H. Ramaiah, on 27 November, 2013
Author: B.S.Indrakala
Bench: B.S. Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th day of November 2013
Before
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.S. INDRAKALA
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4918/2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Prakash Reddy
S/o Kollur Sannappaiah
Aged about 32 years, Agriculturist,
R/o Kurumaradikere
Chitradurga Taluk & Dist. .. Appellant
( By Sri R.Shashidhar, Advocate )
AND:
1. P.R.Ravindranath
S/o B.H.Ramaiah
Age: Major, Owner of Bolero Jeep
Bearing No.KA-16/M-2861,
R/o Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
2. The Manager, I.C.I.C.I.Lombard,
General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Davanagere Road,
Chitradurga. .. Respondents
( By Sri B.Pradeep, Advocate for R-2 )
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:
11.2.2010 passed in MVC No.19/2008 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl.MACT, Chitradurga, partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2
This appeal coming up for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The above appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 11th February 2010 passed in MVC No.19/2008 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM and Addl.M.A.C.T., Chitradurga.
3. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 17.6.2007 when he was riding motorbike bearing registration No.KA-16/Q-7902 from his village to Chitradurga, near Kunchiganal gate, at about 1.30 p.m., the Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-16/M 2861 which was driven by its driver in a rash manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident; in the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries; he was hospitalized; he spent money for his treatment; he is still disabled and 3 in the circumstances, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the said Jeep.
4. The respondent-Insurance company filed its statement of objections denying the allegations of the claimant on all material aspects. Further it is specially pleaded that the liability of the insurance company, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
To prove his case, the claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and the doctor who treated him and assessed the disability as PW-2 and got marked 84 documents at Exs.P-1 to P-84. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence is adduced.
5. On appreciation of the evidence so placed on record, the Tribunal deemed it fit to allow the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.1,88,440/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant/claimant is in appeal inter alia contending 4 amongst other grounds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and seeks enhancement of the same.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of income during the laid up period; the Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.4,000/- per month which is too low and considering the age of the claimant as 30 years and the year of accident as 2007, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further he submitted that even otherwise, the amount awarded under different heads are inadequate and seeks enhancement of the same.
7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/insurer submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence let in by the claimant; the amount awarded is just and proper and the same does not call for interference.
5
8. Thus it is seen that the cause of accident as well as the claimant sustaining grievous injuries in the said accident are not in dispute.
10. As per the wound certificate, the claimant sustained fracture of left clavicle middle 1/3rd, fracture of fibula upper 1/3rd. PW-2 doctor has opined that injuries 1, 2, 7 and 8 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature; there is shortening of right leg by one and half inch on account of fracture of right thigh and assessed the disability at 40% to the right leg and 15% to the left hand. The Tribunal considering the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.4,000/- per month and assessing the disability at 15% in relation to the whole body, deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,22,400/-, which is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.
Considering the nature of injuries i.e., two fractures and other simple injuries, it is reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. 6
By considering the bills produced by the claimant, the Tribunal deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.43,040/- towards medical expenses which is also just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.
Though the claimant has not produced any documents to show that for how many days he was hospitalized and what was the treatment taken, the counsel for the appellant submits that appellant underwent surgery and implants are also inserted and he was inpatient for a considerable time. Considering the nature of injuries, it is reasonable to calculate the laid up period as three months and he is entitled to be compensated at Rs.12,000/- (i.e., Rs.4,000/- x 3) towards loss of income during the laid up period.
The appellant is also entitled to be compensated for other incidental expenses like attendant charges, conveyance, food, nourishment etc., and it is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards the same. Likewise, he is entitled to be compensated for loss of amenities and it is reasonable to award Rs.20,000/- towards the same. 7
Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,27,440/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation as against a sum of Rs.1,88,440/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following:
ORDER The above appeal is allowed in part by modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 11th February 2010 passed in MVC No.19/2008 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM and Addl.MACT, Chitradurga, by awarding compensation of Rs.2,27,440/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.1,88,440/- awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the amount so awarded within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On deposit of the enhanced compensation by the respondent, a sum of Rs.25,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in fixed deposit in the name of the appellant for a period of 5 years in any of the 8 Nationalised Bank of his choice and the interest shall be payable on maturity; the balance amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the claimant/appellant for his immediate necessity.
Office to draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/