Sri Padmanabha v Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6933/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.

¶24

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in

¶25

MVC.No.6933/2011 dated 26.02.2015 by the learned XIII Additional Judge and Member MACT, Court of Small

¶26

Causes, Bengaluru, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that on 21.08.2011, while the petitioner and others were traveling as inmates in a tempo traveler bearing Registration No.KA-02-AA-7218 from Kukke Subramanya to Bengaluru,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31230 MFA No. 5672 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

they met with an accident at about 01.30 am, when a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-12-P-3434 came in a negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed to the tempo traveler. The petitioner and other inmates of the vehicle suffered injuries and they were taken to Channarayapatna Government Hospital and thereafter, to Hassan Government Hospital. The petitioner contends that he suffered fracture of the 4^th rib and fracture of clavicle with other minor injuries. It was contended that he was working as HR Manager in M/s. Ken Consulting Limited and he had to apply for leave without pay for about 06 weeks and had to take treatment. Therefore, the petitioner claimed adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the Tata Indica Car, the offending vehicle. The petition was resisted by the Insurance Company of the Tata Indica Car contending that there was no such negligence on behalf of the driver of the car and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31230 MFA No. 5672 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and

¶34

clubbed the petition with MVC.No.6930/2011 and common evidence was recorded. The petitioner was examined as PW.4 and got the relevant documents marked.

¶35

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

petitioner/appellant would submit that the petitioner was aged about 40 years and earning Rs.68,750/- as per Ex.P34 and during the period of treatment, his wife had also applied for leave and therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards his 'loss of salary during laid up period'. It is contended that the compensation awarded by

¶38

the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, there is a need for reassessment of the same.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31230 MFA No. 5672 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and correct and there is no need for enhancement of the same.

¶42

The records reveal that the petitioner had suffered fracture of 4^th rib and fracture of clavicle. The treatment was conservative in nature and he had applied for leave for about 06 weeks. The Pay Slips which is at Ex.P34 would show that he was earning Rs.68,750/-. The Salary Certificate of his wife is also produced at Exs.P33 and 35 showing that she had also applied for leave. In addition to it, certain invoices were produced amounting to Rs.40,045/- regarding 'conveyance charges'. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had also taken treatment at Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru.

¶43

9. On a careful consideration of the above facts

¶44

and the evidence placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31230 MFA No. 5672 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

head of 'pain and sufferings', a sum of Rs.9,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses', a sum of Rs.15,000/under the head of 'loss of amenities in life' and a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'attendant charges, conveyance and nourishment expenses'. There being no acceptable evidence in respect of the 'loss of pay', as rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner has proved that he was on leave for 45 days. However, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and nature of the avocation of the petitioner is established through Ex.P34, it cannot be denied that he was not working as HR Manager in a Company.

¶48

In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.69,000/- under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.

¶49

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31230 MFA No. 5672 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and Suffering	20,000/-
Medical expenses	9,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	15,000/-
Attendant charges, conveyance and nourishment	15,000/-
expenses
Loss of income during laid up period	69,000/-
TOTAL	1,28,000/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	40,000/-
Enhancement	88,000/-