Karnataka High Court
Rajanna vs The Managing Director on 13 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.391/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN :
RAJANNA
S/O LATE RANGAMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE,
K.GOLLAHALI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560074. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND :
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.295/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXI ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
MACT (SCCH-25), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 04.08.2017 passed in MVC No.295/2016
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-25) ('Tribunal' for
short).
2. The claimant instituted petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
road traffic accident.
3. It was averred in the claim petition that on
09.03.2015 at about 4.45 a.m., when the claimant and
others were proceeding in a BMTC Bus bearing
registration No.KA-01-FA-675 (offending vehicle) as
passengers from Gonipura to K.R. Market, near Minto
Hospital Circle, the driver of the bus drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AB-5434, owing to
which the claimant and other inmates of the bus
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant
was shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein he took first-
aid treatment and got shifted to H.K. Hospital,
Bengaluru - Mysuru Road, Kengeri. Thereafter, he was
shifted to BGS Global Hospital and then to Shreya
Hospital, Kengeri Upanagara, Kengeri. Further he was
admitted to Bangalore Medical College and Research
Institute in the department of Neuro - Surgery and he
was treated from 31.07.2015 to 17.08.2015 as an
inpatient and he has incurred huge amount towards the
medical expenses.
4. It was contended that prior to accident,
injured was doing agriculture and carpenter work and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he
has become permanently disabled. He has immobility
of both the upper and lower limbs. He lost his earning
capacity as earlier. The accidental injuries has caused
mental agony etc., On these set of facts and grounds,
the claimant sought for compensation.
5. In response to the notice issued, the
respondent - BMTC (Corporation) appeared and
contested the claim denying the petition averments. It
was contended that the accident in question had
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the lorry. Accordingly, sought for the dismissal
of the petition.
6. This petition was clubbed with other
petitions arising out of the same accident and a
common judgment was passed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal after framing the issues and answering the
same as per the reasons recorded in the impugned
judgment has partly allowed the petition filed by the
claimant in MVC No.295/2016, awarding total
compensation of Rs.2,28,500/- with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till its
realisation.
7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant
has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is not based on the gravity of the injuries
sustained by the claimant. The impact of injuries being
grievous in nature, the compensation awarded under
different heads is meager and the same requires to be
enhanced substantially.
9. Learned counsel for the Corporation
submitted that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of
material evidence has awarded just and reasonable
compensation and the same deserves to be confirmed
dismissing the appeal.
10. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
11. It is discernable that the claimant contended
that he was doing the agricultural work along with the
carpentry work and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month, no documentary and ocular evidence being
produced, the Tribunal determined the monthly income
of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/-. In the absence
of proof of income, this Court is consistently referring to
the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority to determine the income of the victim
of the road traffic accident, notionally. Having regard to
the same, the monthly income of the deceased could be
safely re-determined at Rs.9,000/-.
12. The injured was aged about 62 years as
could be seen from the medical records. Dr. Nagesh who
was examined as PW.5 deposed that the
injured/claimant had suffered the disability to the
whole body at 75%. Looking to the nature of the injuries
sustained by the claimant, the treatment taken and the
duration of the treatment period, the Tribunal has
assessed the disability to the whole body at 20%.
13. As per the discharge summary - Ex.P8, the
claimant has sustained Cervical Compressive
Myelopathy, undergone surgery of C3, C4, C5, C6
Laminectomy and Disectomy and treated as an
inpatient from 31.07.2015 to 17.,08.2015 nearly for
about 18 days. The wound certificate at Ex.P6 would
disclose that the claimant has suffered tenderness in
both knees. X-ray of both knees would indicate no
fractures and all these injuries are simple in nature.
Having regard to this wound certificate at Ex.P6 and
Ex.P7 MRI report showing degenerative spine changes,
the Tribunal considering the age of the injured/claimant
as 62 years has held that the degenerative spine
changes is related to the age factor and not due to the
accident in question. Accordingly, assessed the
disability to the whole body to the extent of 20%.
However, considering the disability of both the upper
and lower limbs which would cause lot of tribulations
and inconvenience for the rest of the life of injured, we
deem it appropriate to consider the disability of 25% to
the whole body to compute the loss of future income
due to disability. Taking the monthly income of
Rs.9,000/- with disability of 25%, applying the
multiplier of '7', the loss of future income due to
disability would work out to Rs.1,89,000/- (9,000 x 12 x
7 x 25%).
14. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances, we deem it appropriate to award a sum
of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings;
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs.25,000/-
towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment
charges and Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during
laid up period. Medical expenses of Rs.13,035/-
awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed
as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses 13,035/-
Loss of income during
3. 27,000/-
laid up period
Loss of future income
4. 1,89,000/-
due to disability
Loss of future amenities
5. 50,000/-
and happiness
Attendant, conveyance,
6. food and nourishment 25,000/-
charges
Total 3,54,035/-
Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,54,035/- with interest at the rate
- 10 -
of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation
amount from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization.
16. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.3,54,035/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty
Four Thousand Thirty Five only) as
against Rs.2,28,435/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced
compensation amount from the date of
the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability and disbursement
remains intact.
iv) The Corporation shall deposit the amount
determined as aforesaid before the
Tribunal within 90 days from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment and order.
- 11 -
v) The modified compensation amount shall
be disbursed in terms of the order of the
Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) The Registry shall transfer the original
records to the jurisdictional Tribunal
forthwith.
viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of
accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
PMR
