IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

M.F.A. NO.1792/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SATYANARAYANA Y.K., NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O Y.S. KRISHNAMURTHY R/AT CHIKKA HERAGANALU VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - PRESENTLY R/A C/O ANANTHASWAMY 1 ST MAIN, KUVEMPUNAGARA HASSAN - 573 201. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BASAVAIAH, MAJOR S/O SIDDAIAH R/A HONNAKUMARANAHALLI GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK - 573 103. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE LTD., BRANCH OFFICE VENKATESHWARA BUILDING P.B. NO.108, B.M. ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 23/03/2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.214/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 01.06.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.214/2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 04.11.2013 he met with an accident and as a result, he had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula and also other two injuries. He was an inpatient for a period of 20 days and the doctor had assessed the disability at 28% to the left lower limb and the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10% and the income is taken at Rs.6,000/- for the accident of the year 2013. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that disability and income taken by the Tribunal are on the lower side and the compensation awarded is also meager and hence, it requires interference.

3

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in the case of both bones fractures. He further submits that the compensation awarded at Rs.50,000/- on the head 'pain and suffering' and the compensation awarded on the other heads are just and reasonable.

6. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, as against the medical bills produced for Rs.1,57,571/-, only an amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded and the reason given by the Tribunal is also erroneous that the bills are exorbitant. Hence, it requires interference.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, particularly wound certificate - Ex.P.5, it discloses that claimant has sustained fracture of both bones and also he was inpatient for a period of 20 days as per Ex.P.9. Having taken note of the nature of injuries and as he was an inpatient for a period of 20 days, the Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.50,000/- on the head of 'Pain and Suffering', which is just and reasonable.

8. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 28%, particularly, to the left lower limb. The claimant has sustained fracture of tibia and fibula. Tibia is the main bone and fibula is the supporting bone. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken disability at 12%. The Tribunal has taken income of Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking the notional income of Rs.8,000/- as the accident is of the year 2013, and having considered the claimant's age as 48 years, the applicable multiplier is 13 and taking the disability at 12%, the compensation under the head 'loss of income due to disability' comes to Rs.1,49,760/- (Rs.8000/- x 12 x 13 x 12%) as against Rs.93,600/-.

5

9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- on the head 'Medical expenses' and in Paragraph No.13, the Tribunal observed that the bills are exorbitant but those bills are issued by the Hospital and he was inpatient for a period of 20 days and he was also subjected to surgery. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in making such observation and the Tribunal ought to have considered the medical bills in its entirety. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,57,571/- is awarded under the head 'medical expenses'.

10. Now, coming to the aspect of loss of income, this Court has already taken the income at Rs.8,000/- and since the claimant has sustained both bones fractures, it requires minimum four months for uniting of fractures and for rest and therefore, 'loss of income' comes to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 4).

11. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- on the head 'attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- on the head 'food and nourishment charges'; Rs.2,000/- on the head 'conveyance charges', in all Rs.18,000/- is awarded. Since the claimant was inpatient for a period of 20 days, the same are just and reasonable and it does not require any interference.

12. However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head 'future medical expenses' and the Doctor also says that there is a mal-union and hence, awarding Rs.25,000/- on the head of 'future medical expenses' is just and reasonable.

13. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of 'loss of amenities'. This Court having revisited the disability and considered the disability at 12% and since claimant is aged about 48 years, he has to lead his rest of life with disability at 12% and hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head 'loss of amenities'.

14. In all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,62,331/- as against Rs.2,58,600/-.

15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

• (i) The appeal is allowed in part.
• (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 01.06.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.214/2014 is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,62,331/- as against Rs.2,58,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
• (iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/- JUDGE

VP

9