Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumanthappa G H vs Mallikarjun Swamy on 23 November, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2637 OF 2016 (MV)
c/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2638 OF 2016
MFA No.2637 OF 2016
Between:
Shri Hanumanthappa G.H.
S/o Halappa
Aged about 45 years
R/o Gangur village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
...Appellant
(by Shri M.V. Maheshwarappa, Advocate)
And:
1. Mallikarjun Swamy
S/o B.C. Lakshmana
Aged about 27 years
R/at near Shivanai Bhandeshwari Temple
Shivani, Tarikere Taluk
Chikkamagalur District 577 281
2. The Manager
M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kankanadu
Mangalore
2
3. Shri Ashoka P
S/o PUttaswamy Gowda
Antharagange village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
4. Sri Shivaramanna G
S/o G. Gowdegowda
R/o Antharangange village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
5. The Branch Manager
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, S.S. Complex
B.H. Road
Shivamoga 577 201
...Respondents
(by Shri Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate for R2;
Smt. Geetha Raj, Advocate for R5)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment
and award dated 20.01.2016 passed in MVC No.445 of 2013 on
the file of the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga
sitting at Bhadravathi partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA NO.2638 OF 2016
Between:
Shri Gurumurthy
S/o Krishnappa
Aged about 63 years
R/o Dodderi village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
...Appellant
3
(by Shri M.V. Maheshwarappa, Advocate)
And:
1. Mallikarjun Swamy
S/o B.C. Lakshmana
Aged about 27 years
R/at near Shivanai Bhandeshwari Temple
Shivani, Tarikere Taluk
Chikkamagalur District 577 281
2. The Manager
M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kankanadu
Mangalore
3. Shri Ashoka P
S/o PUttaswamy Gowda
Antharagange village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
4. Sri Shivaramanna G
S/o G. Gowdegowda
R/o Antharangange village
Bhadravathi Taluk
Shimoga District 577 201
5. The Branch Manager
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, S.S. Complex
B.H. Road
Shivamoga 577 201
...Respondents
(by Shri Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate for R2;
Smt. Geetha Raj, Advocate for R5)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment
4
and award dated 20.01.2016 passed in MVC No.446 of 2013 on
the file of the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga
sitting at Bhadravathi partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
These Miscellaneous First Appeals coming on for hearing,
this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is before this Court in this appeal. For injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 11th April 2012, the injured made claim petition before the MACT, Shimoga. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 20th January 2016 passed in MVC No.445 of 2013 awarded compensation of Rs.2,02,510/-.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured has suffered grievous injuries to the right foot and right ankle and all over the body and right foot partially amputee ortho B® anle - A/L(R) foot A/L fracture of 4th and 5th Metatarcal bones of right foot and the Doctor has deposed that the claimant has total permanent disability of 36% to the whole body. When these are the disabilities suffered by the claimant and the 5 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. He further submits that the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- by doing agricultural coolie work and the tribunal has committed an error in taking the income only at Rs.4,000/-. Hence he seeks enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance submits to dismiss the appeal. He supports the judgment of the Tribunal and submits that that Tribunal has considered the evidence and documents placed on its record and also after considering the evidence adduced, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and there is no occasion for this court for interference.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. Though the petitioner claimed that prior to the accident he was doing agricultural coolie work and was earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. To substantiate the same he has not produced any document. In the absence of the same, the income has to be assessed keeping in mind the year of accident, place of 6 residence of the victim, number of dependents, cost of living prevalent then, etc. In the present case, the accident is of the year 2012. This court, consistently, for the year of accident of the year 2012 where the income is not proved by producing adequate documents, is assessing the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Accordingly, in the present case also, the income is assessed at Rs.7,500/- per month. Hence, the calculation would be Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 15 x 12/100 which comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future earnings. It is observed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. Considering the agony the claimant has to undergo, I am inclined to award another Rs.15,000/- under the said head. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries and the period for which he has taken treatment, I am inclined to award another Rs,.10,000/- under the said head. Similarly under the heads nutrients, attendant and conveyance and towards loss of earnings during laid up period I am inclined to award another Rs.4,000/- and 11,000/- respectively. 7 Accordingly, the total enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,15,600/- and the total compensation would be Rs.3,18,110/- as against Rs.2,02,510/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the liability as determined by the Tribunal in the ratio 50:50 is retained.
5. In MFA No.2638 of 2016 filed seeking enhancement, I have gone through the award and found that he Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- considering the fact that the the petitioner has sustained lacerated wound of 12 x 4 x 2 on the feet on the left leg for which the doctor has opined the injury is simple nature and also observing that neither bills nor prescriptions are produced by the claimant to show that he has taken treatment or has chosen to examine the doctor. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has awarded the said compensation. Be that as it may, in facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, suffice if Rs.10,000/- globally is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the liability in the ratio of 50:50, as 8 determined by the Tribunal is retained. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn