Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 300 (KAR)

M. M. Venkatesha v. Althafpasha

2010-03-05

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and also as the appeal is of the year 2007. 2. The claimant not being satisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in awarding a compensation of Rs.15.000/- in MVC. No. 298/2004 dated 02.01.2007 by MACT. Kolar, is seeking for enhancement of compensation in the appeal. 3. The facts in nut shell are as follows: The claimant is said to have been traveling in a Autorickshaw from Kolar to go to Kamadenahalli village on 19.08.2004 at about 8 p.m and near Madhusudan Motor House on Kola-Manighatta road an Autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. CRT-8357 dashed against the Autorickshaw in which the claimant was said to have been travelling, on account of which the claimant claims to have sustained injuries. On account of the injury sustained, the claim petition was filed by the claimant. The said petition came to be resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a detailed written statement before Tribunal. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of auto No. CAM-3387 on 19.08.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. on Kolar-Manighatta road near Madhusudhan motor house. 2. What is the amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom? 3. What order? 5. The claimant in support of his claim got himself examined as PW.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P7. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence recorded, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.15.000/- under the following heads: 1. Pain and Sufferings : Rs.10.000/- 2. Medical expenses, conveyance and nourishing: Rs. 5.000/- Total : Rs.15.000/- It is this judgment and award which is now assailed in the present appeal. 6. Sri. G.S. Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. C.C. Annaiah, Advocate would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of compensation. 7. Per contra Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. 6. Sri. G.S. Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. C.C. Annaiah, Advocate would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of compensation. 7. Per contra Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Abdul Khader, Advocate would contend that injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant are of simple in nature and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation based on the material placed before it which is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following point arises for my consideration: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC. No. 298/2004 dated 20.01.2007 is just and reasonable or it requires to be modified/enhanced? If so, to what extent?” 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is seen that as per Ex.P3-wound certificate produced by the claimant that the following injuries was noticed by the Tribunal: 1. Abrasion over the left temporal region of skull. 2. Deformity and tenderness at the lateral 1/3rd of left clavicle. 3. Abrasion over the posterior surface of hape on left neck. 4. Abrasion of size 3x 0.5 x 0.5 cms over the dorsum of left hand bleeding present. 5. Abrasion over the right knee joint. 6. Abrasion over the dorsal surface of great toe. 10. As per the said certificate there were no fractures noted in Ex.P3. The Doctor has opined in Ex.P3 that injury Nos. 1,3 to 6 are simple injuries and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Considering this exhibit and also the evidence of the claimant. I am of the opinion that for injury Nos. 1,3 to 6 a compensation at the rate of Rs.2.500/- can be awarded which would be just and reasonable, since the injuries are simple in nature. Accordingly at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- Per injury, a compensation of Rs. 12.500/- is awarded to the claimant. Insofar as injury No.2 as opined by the Doctor in Ex.P3 there is deformity and tenderness at the lateral 1/3rd of left clavicle which is grievous in nature. The Tribunal having noticed this fact has erroneously not awarded any compensation and the said injury being grievous in nature, a compensation of Rs.7.500/- if awarded would be just and reasonable and accordingly same is awarded. 11. The Tribunal having noticed this fact has erroneously not awarded any compensation and the said injury being grievous in nature, a compensation of Rs.7.500/- if awarded would be just and reasonable and accordingly same is awarded. 11. The compensation awarded under the heading pain and sufferings by the Tribunal is substituted by awarding Rs. 20,000/- under the said heading and thus an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded. As far as compensation under the heading medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment the compensation awarded by Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- is hereby confirmed. Thus, the total compensation payable by the respondent to the claimant would be Rs. 25,000/-as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in granting a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- In view of the above, the following order is passed. The appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-and the said compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of award. The compensation enhanced in this appeal being only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-which is very marginal, no order for deposit has been made. No order as costs.