Karnataka High Court
Mr. Manu K Muhiyudin vs Mr. Mohamed Hussain on 22 February, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
MFA No. 9519 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9519 OF 2013 (MV-I)
Between:
Mr. Manu K. Muhiyudin,
Son of K M Muhiyudin,
Now Aged About 28 years,
Residing At Flat No.307,
"Teja Residency",
Mangmmanapalya,
Bommanhalli
Bangalore-560008,
Rep. by his father,
Mr. K.M.Muhiyudin, S/o K. Moosa,
Aged About 63 years,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
Resident At No.7-C,
"River Heights"
Chempakassery Kadavu,
Aluva, Kerala,
India,
Authorised by way of
Special Power of Attorney.
...Appellant
(By Sri.Siji Malayil, Advocate)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
MFA No. 9519 of 2013
And:
1. Mr. Mohamed Hussain,
Now aged about 28 years,
Bankapura II Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Harihara Taluk,
Davanagere District-581202.
2. Mr. H.C.Nagarajaiah,
Prop: M/s. Sea Bird Tourist,
No.24, Ananth Arcade,
A.V.Road, Kalasipalyam,
Banglore-560002
(Proprietor of the Sea Bird
Bus bearing No.KA-01-D-8440)
3. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Mangalyapunarbhava,
No.132, Brigade Road,
Bangalore-560025
Rep by its Branch Manager
(Insurer of the Sea Bird Bus).
...Respondents
(By Sri. Ravi Shankar S Samprathi, Advocate
For R-3,
Notice to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 dispensed
with vide order dated 30.11.2015 )
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173
of the Motor Accident Act, praying to call for records in MVC
No.2672/2011, on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore (SCCH-3) and modify the judgment/award dated
27-4-2013 by enhancing the award the compensation from
Rs.25,08,070/- with interest of 8% per annum to
Rs.9,37,50,000 along with 24% interest per annum, by
allowing this appeal with cost and grant such other relief/s as
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
MFA No. 9519 of 2013
this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice and equity.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing this day,
Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant under
Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
VII Addl.Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (SCCH-3), Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by its judgment and award
dated 27.04.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.2672/2011.
2. The summary of the case of the present
appellant as claimant before the Tribunal was that, on the
date 27.02.2011, at about 2.45 a.m., while he was
traveling from Goa to Bengaluru in Sea Bird company's
Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8440 and when the
bus reached near Toll Naka on Puna-Bengaluru road,
Harihara, on 28.02.2011, it dashed against a Lorry coming
from the opposite direction. Due to the said road traffic
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
accident, the bus fell on the site of the road in a ditch.
Due to the said rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the bus resulting in the road traffic accident, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to S.S.
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center,
Davanagere, where he was given first-aid treatment and
then shifted to Columbia Hospital, at Bengaluru, wherein
he took treatment as an inpatient.
3. The claimant has further stated in his claim
petition that he was working as a Project Trainee in
Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd., and drawing
a salary of `3,25,000/- p.a. At the time of the accident,
he was a Trainee in University of West Scotland. After
completion of Master's degree in Scotland, he would have
got a job in some of the leading Companies dealing in
Sensor Technologies with his Honeywell expertise and
would have earned `48,00,000/- p.a., however, due to the
accident, his future is spoiled. With this, the claimant has
claimed in total a compensation of `9,37,50,000/- from
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Tribunal arraying
them as driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending
bus respectively.
4. In response to the notice served upon them, the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel
and filed their statement of objections. Upon the memo
filed by the claimant, the petition as against respondent
No.1 came to be dismissed.
5. The respondent No.2 in his statement of
objections while admitting his ownership over the
offending motor vehicle Bus bearing registration No.KA-
01-D-8440, contended that the bus was insured with
respondent No.3 at the relevant point of time and the
policy was in force. He denied that the motor vehicle
accident was at the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus, but, it was uncontended that the
accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of
driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-A-6977.
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
6. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company in its
statement of objections admitting the issuance of
insurance policy and insurance coverage of offending
motor Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8440,
however, restricted its liability to the terms and conditions
of the policy. It also contended that the accident in
question has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the Lorry. Both respondent Nos.2
and 3 have denied the alleged age, income, avocation of
the claimant.
7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got himself
examined as PW-1 and got examined three witnesses as
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and produced and got marked the
documents from Exs.P-1 to P-37. On behalf of the
respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any
documents were produced.
8. After analysing the evidence and the materials
placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
compensation under the following heads with the sum
shown against them:
Sl.
Particulars Amount in `
No.
1 Pain and Agony 60,000/-
Left arm amputed above elbow
2 Actual medical bills 2,21,738/-
3 Compensation towards artificial 12,35,832/-
limb
4 Attendant charges (`150/- per 4,500/-
day) 150x30 days
5 Conveyance, Food and nutrition 8,000/-
6 Disability 18,000x12x17x25% 9,18,000/-
7 Loss of future prospects 50,000/-
8 Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Total `25,08,070/-
9. The Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of
`25,08,070/- and interest at the rate of `8% per annum,
from the date of petition till the date of realisation, holding
the owner and Insurer jointly and severally liable to pay
the said compensation and directed the Insurer to deposit
the award amount. It is against the said judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
10. The respondent No.2 herein (insurer) is
represented by its learned counsel. The notice to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with vide order dated
31.11.2015.
11. Though this appeal is posted for admission, with
the consent from both parties, the matter was taken up for
arguments on main on merits.
12. Records from the Tribunal pertaining to the
matter were called for and the same are placed before the
Court.
13. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company. Perused the materials placed before
this Court, including memorandum of appeal, impugned
judgment and also the records of the Tribunal.
14. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
15. The learned counsel for the appellant (claimant)
in his argument contended that the Tribunal was grossly at
error in taking the income of the claimant at `18,000/- per
month only, when in fact, the evidence of the claimant go
to show that he had an earning capacity of `4 lakhs per
month, which he could not do due to the injuries sustained
by him. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded
towards disability is required to be enhanced considerably.
He also contended that the percentage of disability
considered by the Tribunal is also on the lower side.
Contending that with his qualification in Master's degree
from Scotland and his previous experience in Honeywell, a
Software company, he had bright prospects, however, the
same came to be spoiled because of the injuries sustained
by him. However, the Tribunal without considering these
aspects, since has awarded compensation which is very
meager under all heads, learned counsel for the appellant
prayed to allow the appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company in his brief argument contended that
there is no evidence from the claimant's side to show that
the injury and the alleged disability has in any manner
affected his future career, avocation and income. On the
contrary, the very evidence of PW-1 himself go to show
that even after the alleged disability due to the road traffic
accident, he could get a better prospects and prosperous
job, which he has accepted and pursuing. Admittedly the
alleged disability has not all come in the way of his future
prospects, as such, the very granting of compensation of a
sum of `9,18,000/- by the Tribunal towards his alleged
disability itself is not acceptable. He further contended
that the compensation awarded under all other heads are
reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case,
which warrants no interference at the hands of this court.
17. After hearing the learned counsels from both
side, the points that arise for our consideration are:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
[i] Whether the appellant is entitled for
enhancement in the compensation that has been
awarded by the Tribunal?
[ii] Whether the impugned judgment passed
by the Tribunal warrants any interference at the
hands of this Court?
18. The present appeal being the claimant's appeal
and respondent No.3 (insurer) having not preferred either
cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of
occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as
alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle is not in dispute.
19. The evidence of PW-1 - claimant, coupled with
the documents produced by him and got marked from
Exs.P-1 to P-8, which inter alia includes, claimant's alleged
traveling ticket in the Sea Bird bus bearing registration
No.KA-01-D-8440, the FIR and the complaint regarding
the alleged road traffic accident, the scene of offence
panchanama, the rough sketch of the spot of the accident,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
the wound certificate, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report,
the Medico-Legal case intimation and the charge sheet,
establishes the occurrence of the road traffic accident on
the date, time and place and in the manner as alleged by
the claimant in his claim petition. Ex.P-3, the charge
sheet shows that after investigation about the alleged road
traffic accident, the Ranebennur Rural Police, within which,
the place of the alleged accidents falls, have filed a charge
sheet against the driver of the motor vehicle Bus bearing
registration No.KA-01-D-8440, for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of India Penal Code.
20. Thus, apart from the respondents not denying
the occurrence of the road traffic accident and they have
not challenged the finding of the Tribunal about the
occurrence of the road traffic accident, a revisit to the
evidence of PW-1, with the above exhibits, reaffirms that
the road traffic accident as alleged by the claimant in the
claim petition on the date, time and place has taken place.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
21. Further, the evidence of PW-3 -
Dr.B.S.Venkatesh. an Orthopedic Surgeon and the
evidence of PW-4 - Dr.Kiran, the Medical Officer at
Columbia Asia Hospital, Benglauru, coupled with the
wound certificate at Ex.P-6 and the discharge summary of
Columbia Asia Hospital at Ex.P-10, corroborates the
evidence of PW-1 that in the accident, he sustained
grievous injuries, which according to PW-3 are, (1) crush
injury of left arm from axilla to inner aspect of arm
exposing underlying muscle which are necrotic with
underlying blood vessels and nerves torn with fracture of
humerus and (2) laceration over left forearm exposing the
underlying muscles.
22. The evidence of PW-3 further goes to show that
during the course of the treatment, the claimant on an
emergency basis was surgically operated with amputation
on the elbow leaving only the joint as the upper limb was
not viable. Thus, it stands proved that in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 27.02.2011, the claimant has
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
sustained grievous injuries, due to which, left arm had to
be amputated.
23. Under the above circumstances, since the
appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic
accident, the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who admittedly are
the owner and insurer of the alleged offending motor
vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8440, are
liable to pay compensation to the claimant. As such, the
only question that remains for consideration is the
quantification of the compensation. Even the appeal of
the appellant is also for enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the respondents
have not challenged the impugned judgment. On the
other hand, according to the learned counsel for
respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it satisfied the
amount awarded under the impugned award.
24. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that in the road
traffic accident, he sustained crush injury of his left upper
limb, for which, he had to undergo medical surgical
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
operation, wherein his left arm was amputated. As
observed above, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 - the
doctors of the respective hospitals where the claimant had
taken treatment, have also corroborated the evidence of
PW-1 to the extent of injuries sustained by him in the road
traffic accident. The discharge summary at Ex.P-10 of
Columbia Asia Hospital also reveals about the amputation
of the left arm of the claimant. According to the said
medical document, he was treated as an inpatient in the
hospital for about thirty days. As such, it can be inferred
that the claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in
the road traffic accident has suffered enormous pain and
agony. However, the Tribunal even after noticing the
nature of the injuries suffered by him, has awarded a sum
of `60,000/- towards `pain and agony' to the claimant
who had lost his left arm in the road traffic accident.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the view that the said quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement to bring it
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
to a reasonable amount. Thus, we propose to enhance the
said quantum by an additional amount of `90,000/-, thus,
making the quantum of compensation towards `pain and
agony' to `1,50,000/-.
25. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all
the medical bills and the receipts and other medical
documents produced by the claimant, including Ex.P-12
and Ex.P-13, has awarded compensation of a sum of
`2,21,738/- towards actual medical expenses incurred by
the claimant. Since the said quantification is based upon
the actuals, we do not intend to make any modification
in it.
26. The claimant has been awarded a sum of
`12,35,832/- towards artificial limb. Though the
respondents in the Tribunal contended that the claim of
the claimant towards artificial limb of such a quantum is
on the higher side, however, the claimant got examined
one Sri Anil Kumar as PW-2, who is said to be the Center
Manager of Ms/.OTTO BOCK Health Care India Pvt. Ltd.,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
which has provided the artificial limb and the components
to the claimant. The said witness, apart from giving his
examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence, has
also identified a letter issued by his establishment which
has acknowledged the receipt of a total sum of
`12,35,832/- towards the artificial limb charges from the
claimant. Considering the said evidence of PW-2 and the
evidence of claimant as PW-1, since the Tribunal has
awarded the entire amount of `12,35,832/- as
compensation towards artificial limb, we find no reasons to
interfere in it.
27. Ex.P-10 shows that the claimant was treated as
inpatient in Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru. According
to the findings of the Tribunal, he was inpatient in the said
hospital for a period of thirty days. It is considering the
said length of his stay in the hospital, since the Tribunal
has awarded compensation of a sum of `4,500/- towards
attendant charges, the same is retained as it is without
any modification.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
28. Towards conveyance, food and nutrition, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of `8,000/-.
Considering his length of stay in the hospital, which is not
less than thirty days and the diet, if any, prescribed by the
doctor, we are of the view that the said quantification
requires a slight enhancement to bring it to a reasonable
quantum. Thus, we enhance the same by a sum of
`7,000/-, making it to a total sum of `15,000/-.
29. The main grievance of the claimant, as well as
the argument of learned counsel for the claimant is with
the alleged inadequacy of quantification of the
compensation towards the disability sustained by the
claimant in the road traffic accident. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant was
earning a salary of `3,25,000/- p.a. in Honeywell
Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd., a Software Company
and sacrificing the said job, he left to pursue his higher
studies in Master's degree to Scotland. It is clearing the
said Master's degree, after he came to India, he met with
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
the road traffic accident. Due to his acquisition of higher
educational qualification and with his previous expertise in
Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd., he was
expecting a minimum salary of `48 lakhs p.a. however,
the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant only at
`18,000/- per month and the percentage of disability at
25%, which is very much on the lower side.
30. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company in his argument while drawing the attention of
the Court to Ex.P-31 contended that, even according to
the claimant himself, after his return from Scotland with
the acquisition of Master's degree, he got a job in the very
same Honeywell company, with an annual package of
`5 lakhs. Thus, the very evidence of PW-1, which is
without any documentary corroboration falsifies his own
statement and shows the same to be an exaggeration
without any limit. With this, he submitted that when even
according to claimant himself, he got a job in the very
same Honeywell Company in post-accident period after
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
recognising his alleged prior knowledge of acquisition of
Master's degree, the alleged disability in no manner has
come in he earning a deserving income and leading life.
As such, the very granting of `9,18,000/- towards
disability itself is not sustainable.
31. The claimant as PW-1 though has taken a
contention in his evidence that prior to the accident, he
was working in Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt.
Ltd., and earning a salary of `3,25,000/- p.a., however,
admittedly has not produced any document to show either
that he was working for Honeywell Technology Solution
Lab Pvt. Ltd., prior to he said to have gone to Scotland to
acquire higher education or that he was earning a salary of
`3,25,000/- p.a. The claimant as PW-1 has produced
Ex.P-20, which is a letter of offer of the year 2006 offering
him a basic salary of `5,100/- with a total monthly
package of `17,000/- as a Project Engineer in Wipro
Technologies, Bengaluru.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
32. Admittedly, the said document is only a letter of
offer, but, there is no document to show that the claimant
has accepted the said offer and had joined the services at
Wipro. When the claimant as PW-1 contended that prior
to the road traffic accident, he was working in Honeywell
Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd.,, with a package of
`3,25,000/- p.a., it was required of him to produce any
material to show that he was earning such a sum. When
the claimant could able to preserve and produce the offer
letter of another company shown to have given to him
about five years prior to the accident, he was naturally
expected to maintain, retain and produce his employment
letter and salary slips as at the time of the accident, which
for the reasons best known to him, has not been
produced. Therefore, the contention of the claimant that
prior to the accident and his alleged pursuing higher
studies at Scotland, he was working with Honeywell
Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., and earning a sum of
`3,25,000/- p.a., cannot be accepted.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
However, Ex.P-21 is a letter by Honeywell
Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., addressed to the
appellant and dated 16.09.2010, which shows that he has
been permitted to carry out project work for their
Company on a monthly allowance of `9,750/- and this is
the only document nearest to the date of the accident,
which the claimant has produced as his avocation, as well
the income. The said document, which is not a letter of
employment, much less, permanent employment, is only a
letter issued in favour of the claimant to carry out a
project work in Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt.
Ltd., with a monthly allowance of `9,750/-, which is also
for a duration of eight months. This also further falsifies
the contention of the claimant that he was earning per
annum income of `3,25,000/- prior to the accident in
question by working in Honeywell Technology Solutions
Lab Pvt. Ltd.,
33. The other documents about his avocation or the
income, what the claimant has got produced are at
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
Ex.P-31 and Ex.P-32, which are shown to be the salary slip
and offer of employment by the very same Company -
Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., in favour of
the claimant. Ex.P-32 is the offer of employment dated
08.07.2011, which after taking into consideration his
higher qualification in Master's degree acquired by the
claimant, has offered him a job of Engineer with their
Company with annual gross base compensation of a sum
of `5 lakhs.
Further, Ex.P-31 is a salary slip of the claimant with
the very same Company for the month of September
2012, which shows that, including personal allowance,
conveyance allowance, bonus, the total emoluments of the
claimant of that particular month was only a sum of
`31,725-60 ps.
34. Thus, the very documents produced by none by
none else than the claimant himself at Ex.P-31 and
Ex.P-32 would go to show that, after his alleged return
from Scotland with higher qualification and post-road
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
traffic accident period, there was no diminish in his
income, on the contrary, his acquisition of higher skill or
knowledge was considered by the Company, recognised
and he was offered an annual package of `5 lakhs, which
he has accepted and drew the salary as per Ex.P-31.
Therefore, except his oral say that he was expecting `
48 lakhs p.a. as his income for his qualification, his own
documentary evidence show that even recognising his
qualification, he was given an offer as per Ex.P-32 which
he accepted as per Ex.P-31. As such, the alleged disability
said to have been suffered by him in the road traffic
accident in question has in no way come in the way of he
pursuing his avocation as a Software professionalist/
Software Engineer and getting a deserving income for his
expertise skill and labour.
35. Under the said circumstances, even though the
evidence the Doctors - PW-3 and PW-4 shows that the
claimant was suffering with 35% disability to the whole
body, still, the said disability has not come in the way of
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
the claimant pursuing his avocation and getting the
deserved income in any manner. As such, we do not find
any reason to disturb the quantification and quantum of
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
disability.
36. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum
of `50,000/- towards future prospects. In the analysis
made in the previous paragraphs, it is noticed that the
injuries though sustained by the claimant has resulted in
he suffering the amputation of his left upper limb, still, the
same has not come in the way of he pursuing his
avocation and has got an employment recognising his
higher qualification. As such, his future prospects appears
to have not been affected or diminished in any manner.
There is no evidence to show as to how his future
prospects has been diminished or damaged. For that
matter, the claimant as PW-1 though at one place in his
evidence has stated that he could produce his salary
certificate to show his income, but, has not produced the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
same for the reasons best known to him. Under the said
circumstances, we do not find any reason to modify or
increase the compensation awarded under the `future
prospects'.
37. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of a sum of `10,000/-. No doubt,
loss of right upper limb due to amputation might not have
come in the way of the complainant pursuing his avocation
and continue to get the salary which he was deserving
otherwise also, however, the loss of the left upper limb
has definitely affected the claimant in the other way,
particularly, towards he enjoying the amenities in his life.
He being such a qualified person and Software
professionalist, losing his bright future and also enjoyment
in his personal life, itself gives us a picture that he is
suffering loss of amenities in his life.
Under the said circumstances, the quantum of
`10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low. As such, we
propose to enhance it to a total sum of `1 lakh, by
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
enhancing with a sum of `90,000/-. Thus, the claimant is
entitled for total sum of `1 lakh towards loss of amenities.
39. The Tribunal has not noticed the fact that due to
the injuries sustained by him and particularly, surgical
operation and amputation of left upper limb, even after his
discharge from the hospital, the claimant should have
been necessarily advised for bed rest at least for a period
of three months. Thus, apart from his stay in the hospital
for one month, for three more months, he might have lost
his income. As such, he is entitled for compensation
towards loss of his income during laid up period, which is
for four months. Since the Tribunal has taken his income
at `18,000/- per month for a period of four months, he is
entitled to a sum of `72,000/-.
40. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not
entitled for compensation under any other heads or for
enhancement of compensation under any other heads.
Thus, in total the appellant is entitled for the modified
compensation as below :
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
Sl.
Particulars Amount in `
No.
1 Pain and Agony 1,50,000/-
Left arm amputed above elbow
2 Actual medical bills 2,21,738/-
3 Compensation towards artificial 12,35,832/-
limb
4 Attendant charges (`150/- per 4,500/-
day) 150x30 days
5 Conveyance, Food and nutrition 15,000/-
6 Disability 18,000x12x17x25% 9,18,000/-
7 Loss of future prospects 50,000/-
8 Loss of amenities 1,00,000/-
8 Loss of income during laid up 72,000/-
period
Total `27,67,070/-
Since the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`25,08,070/- only, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an
enhancement of a sum of `2,59,000/- in addition to what
is awarded by the Tribunal. It is for this enhancement
amount only, the present appeal deserves to be allowed
in part.
41. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
ORDER
[i] The appeal filed by the claimant stands
allowed in part;
[ii] The impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned VII Addl.Small Causes
Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(SCCH-3), Bengaluru, dated 27.04.2013, in
M.V.C.No.2672/2011, is hereby modified to the
extent that the compensation awarded at
`25,08,070/- is enhanced by a sum of
`2,59,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fiftynine
thousand only), thus, fixing the total
compensation at `27,67,070/- (Rupees
Twentyseven Lakhs Sixtyseven Thousand
Seventy only).
[iii] The rest of the order of the Tribunal
with respect to fixing the liability upon the
respondents and directing the respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company to deposit the awarded
amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7756-DB
regarding release of the amount awarded shall
remain unaltered.
Draw the modified award accordingly.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along
with its records to the concerned Tribunal without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk
