Ganesh Vs P Ummer

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.882/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri.Mahesh Shetty who appears through video conference and represents the appellant. Also heard Sri.Lakshminarasappa who appears physically before this Court and represents Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. Though Smt.Bushani Kumar is on record for respondent No.1, there is no representation.

¶22

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:6943 MFA No. 3895 of 2014

¶25

Kundapura in MVC No.882/2010 dated 12.03.2013. This is a claimant's appeal.

¶26

As against the claim for Rs.4,92,000/- in total,

¶27

the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The injury sustained to the head resulted in permanent physical disability. Pw.2 spoke about the problems with which the appellant is suffering with post accident and his neurological defects. However, without considering the evidence produced, the Tribunal awarded meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel also states that the appellant is a driver by profession and by working as lorry driver he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal took the notional

¶29

income as Rs.4,000/- p.m. and thereby failed to award justifiable sum as compensation. Learned counsel thereby

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:6943 MFA No. 3895 of 2014

¶32

seeks to allow the appeal and award the amount that is claimed by the appellant.

¶33

On the other hand the submission that is made

¶34

by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant failed to produce any proof to show that he is a driver by profession. Likewise he also failed to establish his earnings. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.

¶35

The contents of Ex.P4 - Wound certificate reveals that the appellant sustained left frontal haemorrhagic contusions and sub arachnoid haemorrhage which is grievous in nature. The appellant also sustained lacerated wound on right pinna with exposed cartilage and also laceration on scalp. Ex.P9 - Neuro Psychological report reveals that the appellant was assessed and neuro psychological assessment revealed impairment in category fluency, verbal fluency, mental speed and complex verbal working memory. The Tribunal through the impugned

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6943 MFA No. 3895 of 2014

¶37

order awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.36,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.10,000/towards loss of amenities, Rs.32,000/towards loss of income during bed rest, Rs.24,500/towards medical expenses, Rs.6,000/towards miscellaneous expenses like conveyance, attendant charges, food and extra nourishment. The Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- as compensation. The Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- p.m. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 32 years by the date of accident. The notional income that is taken by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the relevant period i.e., for the year 2009 is Rs.5,000/- for the settlement of claims. However, the Tribunal did not take at least the said figure into consideration. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment taken, the disability with which the appellant is left with, this Court is of the view that the sum that is awarded as compensation is on lower side. This Court is of the view that the compensation which the

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6943 MFA No. 3895 of 2014

¶39

appellant would receive becomes justifiable in case the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- globally. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to award the said sum in addition to the sum that is granted by the Tribunal.

¶40

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura through orders in MVC No.882/2010 dated 12.03.2013 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

¶45