B. C. CHARAN v. BHARATH KUM

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI.,ADV FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1511/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04th September 2019, passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District, at Channarayapatna, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1511/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR

The brief facts of the case are that, on

16.06.2016, the claimant was traveling in Bolero pick up goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-B-7330 from Hassan towards Mysore for loading and unloading courier parcels. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver, it met with an accident. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of left femur. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-insurer in its written statement denied the contention of the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation. It is further contended that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the complaint, which indicates that it was not a genuine vehicle accident and that it was falsely implicated just to claim the compensation from respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR No.2. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW.1 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P.1 to P.15. Respondents examined 1 witness as RW.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2.

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It directed respondent No.1-owner to pay the said compensation and exonerated the insurer from its liability to pay the compensation since the Tribunal found that the claimant was a passenger in a goods vehicle.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR

The fact of the accident is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 has not challenged the impugned judgment. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration is: i. Whether claimant entitled enhancement of compensation?

The claimant was examined as PW-1 and in his evidence he has reiterated contents of the claim petition. He produced Ex.P.6 i.e., wound certificate, which discloses that he sustained fracture of the shaft of left femur. Ex.P.11-discharge summary shows that he underwent surgery and was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital from 17.06.2016 to 02.07.2016 (around 17 days). It also discloses that he sustained fracture of the left femur. The X-ray and outpatient records are produced by the claimant at Exs.P.13 to P.15. From these documents, the claimant was able to prove that he sustained fracture of left femur.

The claimant produced the medical bills at Ex.P.10 and the total amount of said bills is Rs.58,473/-. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR In the cross-examination of PW.1, nothing was brought out to show that said bill amounts are created only with the purpose of getting higher compensation. Although the claimant has taken treatment in a Government Hospital, the medical bills show that he purchased the medicines from a private medical stores and for some laboratory tests, he paid amount to the hospital. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the said medical expenses by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has not considered incidental expenses incurred by the claimant while undergoing treatment. He had taken treatment as an inpatient for about 17 days and sustained fracture of femur. Therefore, someone must have attended to him in the hospital. He would have required special diet and for follow-up treatment, he must have incurred expenses on taxis or private vehicles to attend the hospital. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR

The claimant is said to be a milk vendor and coolie. According to him, he was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. In his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he was unable to produce any documents to prove his income. The accident occurred in the year 2016. Following the chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.9,500/- per month.

Undisputedly, the claimant did not examine the medical officer to prove his disability. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not award compensation under the head 'loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability'.

The claimant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was a coolie as well as milk vendor. The fracture of his left femur affected his comfortable life. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards 'loss of amenities' and 'future unhappiness'. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR Therefore, the global amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, which needs interference by this Court.

For the above reasons, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings Medical expenses Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges 40,000/- 58,000/- 25,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 47,500/- (Rs.9,500/- x 5) Loss unhappiness amenities future 25,000/- Total Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 1,95,500/- 1,00,000/- 95,500/- 1,00,000/-

The Tribunal exonerated insurer and fastened liability on the owner of the vehicle, since the claimant was a passenger in a goods vehicle. There is no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39567 MFA No. 414 of 2020 HC-KAR materials on record to believe that he was an authorized passenger in a goods vehicle. Even in the grounds of appeal, the claimant has not challenged this finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.1-owner is liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation. The claimant is also entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.