Sri. P. Ramesha Vs M. Mujeeb Ali

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) INCREASE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED ON 15.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.844/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, MYSURU; b) GRANT COST OF THIS APPEAL AND INTEREST ATLEAST AT THE RATE OF 12%, AS THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFERED LOSS AND OTHER RELIEFS WHICH DEEMED FIT BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is by the appellant / claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 15.07.2013, in MVC No.844/2012, passed by the V Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mysuru (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The date of accident, involvement of the

¶33

vehicle, injury sustained and the liability to pay

¶34

compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

Heard Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. Though respondent No.1 is served but remained unrepresented. Vide order dated 30.03.2017, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶36

Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submitted that as per Ex.P.7 – Discharge card and Ex.P.8 - two O.P. slips, which clearly discloses that the appellant has suffered fracture of tibia

¶37

lower 1/3^rd , undisplaced fracture of left malleoli and 5^th metastrasal bone fracture of left lower limb and he was hospitalized for a period of 15 days in K.R. Hospital,

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Mysuru and was treated conservatively. The Tribunal has

¶42

not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads which require enhancement except medical expenses. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶43

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 with all vehemence submitted that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The injuries have not resulted in any disability. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶48

the parties, perused entire appeal papers as well as trial Court record.

¶49

The only point that would arise for consideration by this Court is:-

¶50

“Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the year of accident, is just and proper within the meaning of ‘just compensation’?”

¶51

My answer to the above point for consideration is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons:-

¶52

It is not in dispute that appellant has sustained fracture stated supra . Though the Doctor has not been examined but fact remained that the claimant has suffered fracture of tibia of left leg along with other fracture injuries to the same limb. The Tribunal has taken income of the claimant in the absence of any proof of income and his avocation, at Rs.4,000/-. The accident is of the year

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

‘2010’. The notional income of the claimant is to be taken

¶56

at Rs.5,500/- per month as per the income fixed in the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities. In view of the same, this Court feels that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads requires re-determination except medical expenses.

¶57

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’.

¶58

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶59

Rs.19,900/- towards ‘Medical Expenses’ , which is as per medical bills and does not call for interference.

¶60

In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.5,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for 4 months, the claimant is

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

entitled for a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 4 months) , under the head ‘Loss of income during laid

¶64

up period’ , as against Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

Admittedly, the appellant-claimant was inpatient for a period of 15 days as per evidence before the Tribunal, which is not seriously disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-, towards ‘ Attendant Charges, ExtraNourishment, Food And Conveyance Expenses ’ which is on lower side and the same is enhanced by another sum of Rs.8,000/-, in total Rs.16,000/- , which would meet the ends of justice.

¶66

Insofar as ‘Discomfort and loss of amenities

¶67

of life’ is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,100/-, which is on lower side. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

In summary, the total compensation re-

¶72

determined by this Court under various heads is as follows:

¶73

1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	60,000/-
2.	Attendant Charges, Extra Nutritious food and conveyance expenses	:	Rs.	16,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	19,900/-
4.	Discomfort and loss of amenities of life	:	Rs.	30,000/-
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	22,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,47,900/-

¶74

On re-determination, the appellant is entitled for Rs.1,47,900/- as against Rs.83,000/-. The enhanced compensation works out to Rs.64,900/- (Rs.1,47,900 – 83,000), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40020 MFA No. 5914 of 2015

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶80

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.844/2012 dated 15.07.2013 by the V Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mysuru, is hereby modified holding that the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.64,900/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶81

iii) Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit enhanced compensation along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶82