Rangamma vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1965 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                          BEFORE

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

                  M.F.A.NO.8543/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN:

RANGAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
HOUSE HOLD AND VEGETABLE BUSINESS
R/O GARAGA VILLAGE AT POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
C/O HOSURAPPA
BHOGALEREHATTI
CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST-577 501
                                               ... APPELLANT

             (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KSRTC., SARIGE BHAVAN
       K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
       BENGALURU

2.     INTERNAL INSURANCE
       KSRTC., SARIGE BHAVAN
       K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
       BENGALURU

3.     DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
       KSRTC., DAVANAGERE DIVISION
       DAVANAGERE-577 002
                                      2



4.    DEPOT MANAGER
      KSRTC DEPOT, B.D. ROAD,
      CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501
                                               ... RESPONDENTS
                     (BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1056/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL
MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

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

                           JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the

same is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant

challenging the Judgment and Award passed in

M.V.C.No.1056/2018 dated 27.08.2019 by the I Additional

Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT No.IV, at Chitradurga

('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the

appellant/claimant has sustained the injuries in the road traffic

accident that occurred on 12.09.2018 at about 11:30 a.m, near

KSRTC., bus stand, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent

driving of KSRTC., Bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-1723 by

its driver.

5. The claim of the claimant before the Tribunal is that

she was working as vegetable vendor. Due to the accident she

had sustained physical disability and left foot was amputated as

a result, she is unable to do any job.

6. The claimant in support of her claim, she examined

herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to

P12 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2. The respondent-

Insurance Company though marked the documents as Exs.R1

and R2 and examined one witness as RW.1, the only dispute is

with regard to the quantum of compensation.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the Tribunal has failed to award the

just and reasonable compensation and committed an error in

taking the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and the accident was

of the year 2018. The learned counsel also would vehemently

contend that though the Doctor - P.W.2 assessed the disability

to the tune of 50%, but the Tribunal has taken 17% as

functional disability. Hence, it requires an interference of this

Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would vehemently contend that the Doctor, who has

been examined before the Tribunal is not the treated Doctor and

the assessment made by the Tribunal as 50% disability to the

lower limb is erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would vehemently contend that in order to prove

the fact that the claimant was doing vegetable vending business;

no document was placed before the Tribunal. Hence, the

Tribunal rightly taken the income as Rs.6,000/- per month and

also applied the relevant multiplier of 11. Hence, it does not

require any interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for

the respondents, the point that would arise for consideration of

this Court is :-

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?

10. Having perused the material both oral and

documentary evidence and also the discussion made in

paragraph No.11 of the Tribunal, taken note of the nature of

injury i.e., Crush injury left foot till supra mallelour region,

degloving injury, phalanges of great toe formed to be fractured,

tendon of dorsum of foot exposed, sole of foot complete slim loss

and also discussed the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, who assessed

the disability and came to the conclusion that the foot of the

claimant was amputated and the disability would be 50% to the

left lower limb, however, assessed the disability to the whole

body as 17%.

11. Having perused the material available on record, it is

not in dispute that the accident was taken place in the year 2018

and the Tribunal committed an error in taking Rs.6,000/- as

notional monthly income. If the accident is of the year 2018, as

in the absence of no proof of income, it would be Rs.12,500/-

per month. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking

the income of Rs.6,000/- per month.

12. With regard to disability is concerned, I do not find

any merit in taking the higher percentage of disability and the

Tribunal has taken 1/3rd in respect of the disability to the whole

body. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier 11 taking

into note of her age as 55 years. Hence, it requires re-visiting

the quantum of compensation. It has to be noted that the

Tribunal though assessed the future loss of income but not

awarded the compensation on the other heads individually but

awarded globally. Hence, the same has to be formulated on

different heads.

13. Taking into note of the nature of injury and

amputation, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/-

under the head of 'pain and sufferings'. The injured was in the

hospital for a period of 26 days and the medical expenses of

Rs.1,490/- was spent. The Tribunal considered the same and it

does not require any interference with regard to the medical

expenses is concerned. However, the Court has to take note of

the nature of the injuries suffered and the loss of income for a

period of four months i.e., 12500 x 4 = 50,000/- has to be

awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Hence,

Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up

period'.

14. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on the

head of 'loss of amenities' as the disability was to the extent of

17% to the whole body. Hence, it is appropriate to award an

amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

15. The Tribunal was not awarded any amount towards

'Food and Nourishment' as the injured was in the hospital for a

period of 26 days. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount

of Rs.20,000/- towards 'Food and Nourishment'.

16. Having taken the income as Rs.12,500/- per month

and by applying the relevant multiplier '11' since she was aged

about 55 years with 17% disability, the 'future loss of income'

comes to Rs.2,80,500/- (12500x12x11x17/100).

17. In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is

entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,51,990/- as

against Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has

awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum, the same has

to be reduced to 6% per annum due to the present bank rate of

interest.

18. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.1056/2018 dated 27.08.2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT No.IV, at Chitradurga is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,51,990/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit as against Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.

(iii) The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today.

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

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*