Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 26 (KAR)

Thimmappa Naik v. Shailendra And Others

2020-01-03

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.01.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge & MACT, D.K., Mangaluru in MVC No.1735/2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2012 at about 8.45 a.m. claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EF-3223 from Mani towards Mangaluru. His wife Smt.Kavitha was the pillion rider. When they reached near Halira, Mani Village, a tanker bearing registration No.TN-33/AE-9865 came from opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mahaveera Medical Centre, Puttur where he was inpatient from 30.10.2012 to 03.11.2012. Immediately after recovering from the injuries, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No.1735/2012. 3. To establish his case, claimant examined himself as PW1 and got marked 24 documents as Exs. P1 to P24. On the other hand, on behalf of the Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and got marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Sri Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to the accident claimant has suffered the following injuries: (i) Pain and tenderness and swelling on the left side of the face in zygomatic region (ii) Abrasion on the left side of the face. (iii) Tenderness swelling and contusion on the upper lip. (iv) (a) Abrasion left arm (b) Abrasion dorsal aspect left hand (c) Abrasion right elbow. (v) Abrasion and swelling on the left leg dorsal aspect. (vi) Undisplaced fracture of zygomatic complex. He submits that the injuries are grievous in nature and the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the category of loss of amenities. Secondly, he contended that Ex.P20 is the leave sanction letter issued by the employer. Claimant was on leave nearly for one month. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the category of loss of earning during the laid up period. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation. 5. Secondly, he contended that Ex.P20 is the leave sanction letter issued by the employer. Claimant was on leave nearly for one month. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the category of loss of earning during the laid up period. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, Sri K.S.Lakshminarasappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and they are simple injuries. The claimant has not examined the doctor who assessed the disability. The Tribunal, on the basis of the document produced by the claimant and the wound certificate as per Ex.P17 has rightly granted just and proper compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered the injuries due to the accident occurred on 30.10.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker bearing registration No.TN-33/AE-9865. Due to the accident he suffered the aforesaid injuries. Out of the said injuries two injuries are grievous in nature. The Tribunal is not justified in not granting any compensation under the category of loss of amenities. Taking into consideration the deposition of the parties and the wound certificate as per Ex.P17, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- under the category of loss of amenities. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident claimant was hospitalized from 30.10.2012 to 03.11.2012. Thereafter, as per Ex.P13 leave application and Ex.P20 copy of the leave sanction letter, the claimant was unable to work for a period of one month. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the category of loss of income during the laid up period. Taking into consideration the aforesaid documents, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- under the category of loss of income during laid up period. 8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the category of loss of income during the laid up period. Taking into consideration the aforesaid documents, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- under the category of loss of income during laid up period. 8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, dated 02.01.2015, is modified as under: Compensation under different Categories As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Injury, pain and suffering 40,000/- 40,000/- Hospitalization, conveyance and other incidental expenses 2,000/- 2,000/- Medical expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Loss of amenities - 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period - 20,000/- Total 47,000/- 87,000/- 9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The amount so deposited by the Insurance Company shall be disbursed to the claimant, after due verification of his identity.