Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayalakshmamma vs The Managing Director on 17 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.3431/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.15,
KALLEGOWDANADODDI,
CHILLUR POST,
MARALAWADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PRESENT ADDRESS:
NO.24, SHARADANAGAR
CHUNCHAGHATA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 068. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C., K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. P.C. SUNITHA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.4090/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL (SCCH-5) AT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 05.12.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.4090/2014 on the file of
the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short)
questioning the quantum of compensation.
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 claimant has suffered fracture of shaft right
humerus and she was inpatient for a period of 9 days and in
support of her contention, examined herself as P.W.1 and
examined the Doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability at
19% and the Tribunal awarded global compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-, including the medical expenses of Rs.13,627/-
and not awarded compensation under different heads. Hence,
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant would
vehemently contend that compensation is not assessed under
different heads and the Tribunal ought not to have awarded
global compensation when there was a disability.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
K.S.R.T.C. would submit that the Tribunal taking note of the
material available on record, rightly awarded global
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which is just and reasonable and
it does not require any interference of this Court.
5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, it is the accident of
the year 2014 and having taken note of the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of shaft right humerus, it
is appropriate to award Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering.
6. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under other incidental expenses. Considering the fact that the
claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days, an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded under other incidental expenses.
7. The medical bills are produced to the tune of
Rs.13,627/- and the same is rounded of to Rs.14,000/-. Since,
the same is awarded based on the documentary evidence, it
does not require any interference.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
K.S.R.T.C. would submit that, under C.M. Medical Relief Fund, an
amount of Rs.8,938/- was reimbursed and the same is not
included in the medical bills and hence, after deducting the said
amount at the time of discharge, the claimant made the
payment of Rs.3,000/- and the same shall be claimed and not
the entire amount. The said contention of the learned counsel
for the respondent-K.S.R.T.C. cannot be accepted.
9. The Tribunal has not assessed the compensation on
the head of loss of future income. The accident is of the year
2014 and the notional income would be Rs.8,500/- per month.
Though the Doctor has assessed the disability at 19%, the same
cannot be accepted since, the claimant has sustained only the
fracture of shaft right humerus. Hence, this Court has
considered the disability at 8% and having considered the
income at Rs.8,500/- per month, the disability at 8% and
applying the relevant multiplier of '16', the loss of future income
comes to Rs.1,30,560/- (8,500 x 12 x 16 x 8/100).
10. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on
the head of loss of amenities and taking the disability at 8%, it is
appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- on the head of loss of
amenities.
11. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on
the head of loss of income during laid up period. Hence, taking
the income at Rs.8,500/- per month and the laid up period as 3
months, an amount of Rs.25,500/- is awarded under the head of
loss of income during laid up period.
12. The Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 has
deposed with regard to the fact that Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-
would be required for future medical expenses. Hence, taking
note of the said fact into consideration, an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.
Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,50,060/- as against global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
13. 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 05.12.2016 passed in
M.V.C.No.4090/2014 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,50,060/- as against
global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The respondent-K.S.R.T.C. 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
ST
