Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1936 (KAR)

Balaraj v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2019-09-03

S.G.PANDIT

body2019
JUDGMENT : S. G. PANDIT, J. 1. The claimant is before this Court in this appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 16.09.2013 passed in MVC No.411/2012 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). 2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.12.2011. It is stated that on 14.12.2011, when the claimant was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-06/Y-9307, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-40/K-9383 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the claimant was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., by working as a technician. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Deeksha Hospital and after first aid he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein he took treatment as inpatient for more than 39 days. 3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1/Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. But admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle. Further, it is contended that the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and disproportionate. 4. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of respondents, they have not lead any oral evidence nor marked any documents. 5. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.4,68,324/- taking the monthly income of the injured at Rs.4,500/- and whole body disability to an extent of 18%, under the following heads: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000 2. Loss of income during Treatment period Rs. 18,000 3. Medical expenses Rs.1,05,364 4. Loss of future earning Rs.1,74,960 5. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000 6. Attendant charges, conveyance nourishment & diet, etc., Rs. 10,000 7. Future medication Rs. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000 2. Loss of income during Treatment period Rs. 18,000 3. Medical expenses Rs.1,05,364 4. Loss of future earning Rs.1,74,960 5. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000 6. Attendant charges, conveyance nourishment & diet, etc., Rs. 10,000 7. Future medication Rs. 40,000 Total Rs.4,68,324 The claimant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- p.m., is on the lower side. He submits that the claimant had stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. working as a technician. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.6,000/- p.m. as income of the claimant. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various other heads are also on the lower side. Thus, prays for enhancement of compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation on the head pain and suffering, loss of income during the treatment period and for future medication. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 10. Answer to the above question is in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident occurred on 14.12.2011 involving the motorcycles bearing registration No.KA-06/Y-9307 and KA-40/K-9383 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant's appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. by working as a Technician, but the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-. The claimant's appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. by working as a Technician, but the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-. This Court and Lok Adalaths, while settling the accident claims of the year 2011 would normally take notional income of Rs.6,500/- p.m. In the present case, the claimant himself has stated that by working as a technician, his monthly income is at Rs.6,000/- and it would be appropriate to assess the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. The claimant has suffered fracture of right leg with crush injuries and other injuries. 11. Looking to the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant, the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability to an extent of 18%, which needs no interference. Further, the compensation awarded on other heads needs no interference, except the loss of future earning. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the head loss of future earning which is as follows: 6,000x12x18x18/100 = Rs.2,32,280. The compensation awarded under other heads remain intact. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,26,644/- as against Rs.4,68,324/- thereby the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.58,320/-. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 16.09.2013 passed in MVC No.411/2012 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City is modified. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,26,644/- as against Rs.4,68,324/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.