Sri. G. Gujjaraiah Vs Sri. Rajiv Chowdary

SRI. G. GUJJARAIAH, S/O. G. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46, UDDANDAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKANAHALLI POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN - 562 130.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. R V SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by 1. SRI. RAJIV CHOWDARY, KAVYA R MAJOR, Location: OFFICE AT NO.340, High MOOKAMBIKA KRUPA, Court of Karnataka 1ST A CROSS, 10TH B MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAWESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶14

THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.186/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

HC-KAR

WILSON GARDEN,

BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2664/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 07^th October 2016, passed by the Member, Principal MACT and Chief Judge Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-1), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2664/2015, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.06.2015 at about 08.00 a.m. claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-L-6911 on Kengeri-Tavarekekre-Doddaladamara Main Road and met with an accident at Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No.KA-02-MA-5167 by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of left femur. He was admitted as an inpatient in Amma Hospital, Bengaluru, and has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered from permanent disability. The claimant was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and he was a Mechanic at BMTC Depot No.35, and earning Rs.34,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to continue his work. With these reasons, he prayed to grant the compensation.

¶29

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent

¶30

No.2 is the insurer of the offending car. Respondent No.1

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and filed objection contending that contents of the claim petition are not true and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶34

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶35

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶36

6. The claimant to prove his case examined three

¶37

witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 20 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-20. Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence.

¶38

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties,

¶39

awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶40

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	35,000/-
Medical expenses	1,08,865/-
Loss of income during treatment (for 129 days at the rate of Rs.1,133/-per day)	1,46,157/-

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Loss of amenities in life on account of fractures	50,000/-
Attendant charges, conveyance charges and other incidental expenses	10,000/-
Total	3,50,022/-
Rounded off to	3,50,000/-

¶44

8. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the

¶45

Tribunal, the claimant has filed present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶46

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.

¶47

The contention of the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of amenities is on the lower side. The claimant has suffered permanent disability of 19% to the whole body, and as per the evidence of PW-2, the same was not considered by the Tribunal. The claimant has submitted the bills of Rs.1,75,763/-, but the Tribunal has awarded only

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Rs.1,08,865/towards medical expenses, which is incorrect. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurer submits that the Tribunal has considered all the materials placed before it and passed the impugned judgment awarding a just and reasonable amount of compensation. The claimant has submitted the medical bills, which are not pertaining to the treatment taken for accidental injuries but for some other reasons. The said facts were considered by the Tribunal and by assigning proper reasons, it rejected the remaining claim on medical bills. He further stated that on the three heads, the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶52

Fact of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and that he was working as a Mechanic at BMTC Depot No.35, and earning Rs.34,000/- per month as salary

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

are not in dispute. It is also not the case of the claimant that after he sustained injury he resigned or his salary was reduced he was forced to another post having less salary. Therefore, there is no question of loss of his income due to injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal has assigned the reasons in paragraph No.29 of the impugned judgment. On re-appreciating the said documents, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said findings of the Tribunal.

¶56

Looking at the injuries sustained in the accident and disability suffered by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded under the head 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation regarding 'loss of income due to permanent disability', since he was drawing the regular salary even after the accident. But the fracture and his disability will affect his day-to-day activities. At the time of accident, the claimant was about 58 years old and already experiencing the onset of disability. Therefore, he would

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

have lost several amenities that are otherwise available to

¶60

a healthy person. The Tribunal could have considered the same and awarded more amount of compensation under the heads 'loss of amenities and future unhappiness'. Even the amount of compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering, attendant charges, conveyance charges etc., is on the lower side, they requires enhancement. For the above said discussions, the following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶61

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	50,000/-
Medical expenses	1,08,865/-
Loss of income due to availment of leave	1,46,157/-
Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	1,00,000/-
Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000/-
Total	4,25,022/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	3,50,000/-
Enhancement-	75,022/-
Rounded off	*75,000/-*

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realisation. Respondents are liable to pay the same.

¶65

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶68

ii) The judgment and award dated 07^th October 2016, passed in MVC.No.2664/2015, by the Member Principal MACT and Chief Judge Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-1), stands modified.

¶69

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.75,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶70

iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:28497 MFA No. 8208 of 2016

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

v) The enhanced amount of

¶74

compensation is marginal and claimant is an employee of corporation, entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

¶75

vi) Draw award accordingly.

¶76

Registry is directed to send back the records along

¶77

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶78

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶79

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri. G. Gujjaraiah v. Sri. Rajiv Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. Gujjaraiah v. Sri. Rajiv Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K. Nagaraj Vs Venkatesh

Range Gowda Vs Venkatesh

Sri Siddappa H S Vs Sri Babu Suresh D

Santhosh @ Santhosh Vs Manjunatha

Mr Shashidhar G S Vs Appi Reddy C H

Smt Jayalaxmi Vs Mr Anjanappa