Karnataka High Court
Shivaram vs Chandrashekar on 24 November, 2011
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24™ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 : PRESENT: _ THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NUK-PATIL 7 anp We THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APFA RAO M.F.A.No. 560%.OF 2006 (MV) Between: Shivaram, . ee S/o. Vi enkataswan zaiah, Aged about 34 years, ~ R/o. No.487/15. a C/o. Mandya Krishnappa Cempound, Chowdeshwari Nazar, - Me Laggere, Bangalore.. a cn .. Appellant (By Sri. K.A.Chandrashékare; Advocate) ~< 1, Chandrashekar, -..Father's.name not Known t9 the appellant, _ "Major in. age: ~R/o. Nov??7/31, 7 Cross, i:7-Main, J.C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bangalore-86. '2. 'The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.. Divisional Office No.VHI, No.47, Gopal Complex, Il Floor, Bazar Street, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-22. Rep. by its Manager. wre .Respondeiits » Notice to R1 dispensed with v/o. dated 21 /10/2009} ee This MFA is filed U/S_173(1}, of MV Act against the. judgment and award dated: 26/10/2005 passed in" MVC. - No.2544/2004 on the file ef "the Xi. Addl: Judge and Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area,. Bangalore, (SCCH-12), partly allowing the claim pétition fer compénsation and seeking enhancement cf Compensation. ~ This) M.F.A. coming. an. for. Hearing this day, N.K. PATIL J..delivered the following: ™ So iu DG MENT: This. "appeal is. filed "by..the appellant- claimant against the impugned..common judgment and award dated 26/10/2005°.passed in MVC No.2544/2004 on a thé file, of the Xi Additional Judge and Member, Motor . Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-12}; (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for . short}. : oo "2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of $96,459/- under different heads with 4b thom interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, excluding interest on the amount' awarded towards future medical expenses as against the claiin . account of the injuries sustained by him. in the road. traffic accident. | 3. In brief, the tacts of the case are: . The appellant claims '0 be aged about 42, years and Electrical Contractor. by: profession. He was hale and healthy - prior to" rhe. accident. He met with an accident ate. to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Sunia 'bearing Reg.No.KA.02.P.9200 on | 16.3.2004. at ; about 7.30 p.m. while he was proceeding along with his wife and minor daughter A towaids-Sarijeevayana Palya, Magadi Taluk in his Bajaj M.80 bearing Reg.No.CAN 2145 on Magadi Kunigal . road, and sustained grievous injuries. For that, he has taken treatment as inpatient from 16.3.2004 to '--3.4.2004, underwent one surgery and implants were inserted and thereafter, follow up treatment for. three months. It is the further case of the appellant. that, "he has spent considerable amount. tov rards. medical . on account of the injuries sustained by him, the" has. suffered permanent disability. The Dector has assessed the disability at 45% to the right upper lini and 15% to the whole body and 30% "0 'ote the: fave dis sfiguration and at 10% to the whole body arid' inal, 25% to the whole body. It s permanent in nature an he has to suffer this disab: lity through ow out his is ie. Therefore, appellant has filed a- claim petit ion, before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the driver, owner and Insurer of Oo the offendin g vehicle. 4 <The. said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after - hearing "both sides and after assessing the oral and doctimentary evidence, has allowed the said claim ~--petition in part and awarded a sum %96,459/- as a compensation under different heads with interest .at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, excluding interest on the amount awardéd. towards future medical expenses. £ 5. Being dis-satisfied with the "quantum. OF. compensation awarded by thé. Tribunal, the appellant has presented this."appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. We.-liave heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and leartied counsel appearing for second respondent: Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel 'appearing for the appellant submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding oe reasoriablé compensation towards medical expenses, A, conveyance, "nourishing food and attendant charges, towards loss of income during the period of treatment, . towards 'loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness cand 'towards future medical expenses and therefore, it ~~ nay be modified. Further, he submitted that the income / f Dorr ; earn & 6 assessed by the Tribunal at %3,000/- per month is on lower side and it is liable to be modified. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and' award is" liable to be modified. 8. As against this, learned caunsel for. Insurer submitted that, the Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has awarded just and reasonable _Gothpénsation and therefore, interfesenice by this Court is "hot called for. 9, Alter careful consideration of the submissions made by learned "counsel for both parties and after careful perusal of the origitial records available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by "the > ribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: _ ,Whesther the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 10. After careful perusal of the material "available on record, we are of the considered view that, Z ....
the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute>.".The Tribunal, after assessing oral and documentary © injuries sustained by him, has awarded 4. 'sum: of., €35,000/- towards pain and 'sufferings, which is just and reasonable and therefore," it does. not call for interference.
il. However: the T ribénal has. erred in not awarding reasonable compensation fuwards ~ medical expenses, convevarice,. kourisiing. food and 'attendant charge, loss of income during the 'period af treatment, loss of amenities and loss due to. disability ane towards future medical expenses a and therefore, it needs to be modified. It is not in dispute | that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken? treatment as inpatient from 16.3.2004 to 3.4.2004, undergone one surgery, implants were inserted : : arid, thereafter follow up treatment for three months and Guring the said period he might have sustained financial
-loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly.
SOL RUNS Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he suffered permanent disability and the Decior has assessed the disability at 45% to the right upper jimb_ and 30% to the face disfiguratior and in all, 25% to the It is permanerit in, whole body and we accept the same.
nature and he has to suffer this disability. through out. his life and it would affect his working capacity and he has lost his amenities and 'enjoyment in life. Further, the Doctor has deposed ats. "appellant has to undergo one more operation fot removal of implants and for that he may require "some amount. The Tribunal has assessed the 'income of the claimant at %3,000/- per month, which "is on 'lower side and it needs to be oe etihaniéed: It is the case of the appellant that, he is an A, Biectiical contractor and earning €10,000/- per month. But he has not produced any cogent evidence to prove : the sane. Having regard to the age, occupation and the year' of accident. if we take the income of the claimant at €4,000/- per month instead of 3,000/- per month, 9 it would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, it is taken. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we au awa rd a sum of £30,000/- towards medical expenses"conveyainse. nourishing food and attendant charges Insiead of 224 459 /> 7 <12,000/- towards loss of inconte dui ing" the "period sd of treatment for three months ait the rate of x4 000/: per fnonth: | instead of €9,000/-: %50 .000/- tow ards loss of anienities of life, disability, discomforts and inne unhappiness instead of %23,000/- ~ and X16 Ae 900/-.t towards future medical expenses instead of of <5, cows. in val, the appellant is entitled toa total compersation' of .g 37. 060/- instead of 94,459/-
and the break- we is'as "Ipllows:
"i Towards pain.and sufferings 35,000/- Towards medical. expenses, conveyance, = 30,000/- nourishing food-and attendant charges ".| Towards. toss of 'jcome during the| % 12,000/- jeriod of treatment | Powards | loss sof amenities ¥ 50,000 /- Towa rds. future r medical expenses = 10,000 /- Total ¥ 1,37,000/-
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thé-case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in "part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 26') October 2005 passed by the Tribunal so far as it-relates to MVC No.2544/2004 stands modified, awe ding 'the compensation of %40,459/- with interest at°6% -p.a\.. frota * the date of petition till its realisdtion, in additicn to: the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, | The second respondent-Insurer is directed, to-deposit the enhanced compensation of 240.459 /- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition eM the. date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of réceipt of a copy of this judgment and award i | The entire enhanced compensation shall be released in fa our, of the appellants immediately, on deposit by the Insurer. s 7 Draw the. award, accordingly.