Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Amaranath Yadav vs Sri M S Natarajagupta on 8 November, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012,
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
M.F.A.NO. 10112 OF 2008 (MV)
Between:
Sri. K.V.Amaranath Yadav,
S/o. G.Venkatarama,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at. Kondarajanahalli,
Maderahalli,
Kolar Taluk & District.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Suguna.R.Reddy, Advocate)
And:
1. Sri. M.S.Natarajagupta,
S/o. Sathyanarayana Shetty,
Major in age,
R/at. 2903,
Near Chinmaye Vidyalaya,
School Shishuvihar,
New Extension, Kolar.
2. The Branch Manager,
M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office,
Baglur Construction,
I Floor, Doddapet,
2
Kolar.
... Respondents
(By Shri. B.V.Anand, Advocate for R1;
Shri. P.B.Raju, Advocate for R2)
******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 08/02/2007 passed in MVC No.
675/2002 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2007, passed in MVC No. 675/2002, by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `1,24,080/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for `18,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 24 years and a Proprietor of ISET Computer Institute and earning a sum of `10,000/- per month. He was hale 3 and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 11:45 A.M., on 27-08-2000, when the appellant was moving in his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.CKS- 6844, from Gokul college side to Kolar city, on Kolar- Tekal road, near Mini Hotel, Harohalli cross, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Sumo (LMV) bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-05/PRS-1945. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries such as communited fracture of upper 3rd of left Tibia and upper end of left Fibula, grade II sprain of Radial collateral ligament of the right thumb. Immediately, he was shifted to the Hospital, where he took treatment for four days and thereafter shifted to Rajmahalvilas Hospital, Bangalore, where he was hospitalized for a period of 12 days.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses 4 and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.
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 `18.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 8th February 2007. 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 `1,24,080/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents for considerable length of time.
5
6. It is the case of the appellant that on account of the road traffic accident, he sustained grievous injuries such as communited fracture of upper 3rd of left Tibia and upper end of left Fibula, grade II sprain of Radial collateral ligament of the right thumb. For treatment of the said injuries, he took treatment for four days in the Hospital and thereafter at Rajmahalvilas Hospital, Bangalore, for a period of 12 days and therefore, he has to be awarded reasonable compensation.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, we are of the view that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged between 22 and 24 years. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of `9,600/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions, `30,000/- towards injury pain and 6 suffering and `64,800/- towards loss of earning capacity. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
8. However, so far as the compensation awarded under conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and loss of income during treatment period is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained communited fracture of upper 3rd of left Tibia and upper end of left Fibula, grade II sprain of Radial collateral ligament of the right thumb. He took treatment for four days, at the first instance in the Hospital at Kolar and thereafter shifted to Rajmahalvilas Hospital, Bangalore, where he was hospitalized for a period of 12 days. The Doctor has assessed 28% disability in respect of limb and 10% towards whole body. The appellant being aged about 22/24 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Because of the injuries sustained, he must 7 have been away from work for a period of not less than three months. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for more than two weeks, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. During this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. So far as the income of the appellant assessed by Tribunal at `3,000/- per month is concerned, we are of the view that the same is just and proper and does not call for interference. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of `30,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against `15,000/-, `10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against `3,080/-; `9,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the 8 rate of `3,000/- per month for a period of three months, as against `1,600/- awarded by Tribunal.
9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2007, passed in MVC No. 675/2002, by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `1,53,400/- as against `1,24,080/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhancement of compensation would work out to `29,320/-. The break-up is as follows:
Towards Pain and sufferings ` 30,000/- Towards Loss of amenities & ` 30,000/-
enjoyment in life on account of
disability
Towards Medical Expenses ` 09,600/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing ` 10,000/-
food and attendant charges
Towards Loss of earning during ` 09,000/-
treatment period
Towards loss of future earnings ` 64,800/-
Total `1,53,400/-
9
The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `29,320/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*