Karnataka High Court
Sri. H.R.Ramachandra vs The Managing Director on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
MFA No. 1523 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 1523 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.R.RAMACHANDRA
S/O RANGAYYA, AGE: 69 YEARS
R/O NO.41, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS
SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI
BANNERAGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C., K.H.ROAD
SHANTHINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 027 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SHIVANI, ADV. FOR
SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)
Digitally signed by THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
MALA K N AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.837/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
Location: HIGH COURT
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER,
OF KARNATAKA ND
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-13) C/C 2 ADDITIONAL JUDGE &
28TH ACMM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
MFA No. 1523 of 2018
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 08.09.2017 in
M.V.C.No.837/2016 passed by the Court of
Additional Small Causes Judge and M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru (SCCH-13) ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 25.12.2015 at
about 12:20 am (midnight), while the petitioner was
travelling in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
17/F-1281 along with his wife Smt. T.R. Chayadevi
near Konehalli on N.H.-206 Shivamogga-Bengaluru
Road, another K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
17/F-1632 hit against their bus, injuring the
petitioner and killing the wife of the petitioner
Chayadevi at the spot. After taking treatment, the
petitioner approached the Tribunal for grant of
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claim was
opposed by the K.S.R.T.C. The Tribunal after taking
the evidence, awarded compensation of
Rs.7,23,835/- with 6% interest p.a. Pleading
inadequacy and seeking enhancement, he has filed
this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Suresh. M.
Latur, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Smt. Shivani, learned counsel on behalf of
Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered 3 fractures
with dislocation of fingers, sustained 54% limb
disability; he was under hospitalization for 18 days;
the petitioner was working as a Clerk in a Private
Company; the Tribunal has not assessed income of
the petitioner correctly and he sought for
enhancement.
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the injuries are simple
fractures and dislocation of fingers has been restored
after treatment, limb disability of 54% is though
assessed by the treated Doctor, the Tribunal has
wrongly assessed 27% as a whole body disability;
there is no proof that the petitioner was working as a
Clerk in a Private Company and at the age of 67
years, he is in his retirement life and the Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income at Rs.7,000/-, but
the disability assessed is on the higher side and she
sought for modification.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident
involving 2 K.S.R.T.C. buses, injuring the petitioner
and killing his wife at the spot. Petitioner was a 67
year old senior citizen, he is claiming that he was
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
working as a Clerk, earning Rs.12,000/-, but in proof
of the income and avocation, he has not produced
any evidence. Hence, he has to be treated as a
person with no proof of income. In the year 2015, a
person with no proof of income will earn not less
than Rs.9,000/- per month, hence the income of
Rs.7,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower
side.
9. As regarding disability is concerned, with
reference to the medical evidence, limb disability is
assessed at 54% and the Tribunal has taken 27%
whole body disability on the ground that the
petitioner was working as a Clerk in a Private
Company. As referred supra, the petitioner has not
placed any evidence in proof of his employment and
he has to be treated as a person with no proof of
income. Therefore, the assessment of 27% whole
body disability is not proper. Having regard to the
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
dislocation and 3 fractures, the whole body disability
has to be taken at 20%.
10. Following is the award of the Tribunal:
Sl. No. Particulars Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings 50,000
2 Loss of future earnings 1,13,400
3 Loss of amenities, happiness, 35,000
inconvenience and frustration
4 Medical expenses 4,85,435
5 Conveyance, nourishment and 25,000
nutritious food
6 Future medical expenses 15,000
Total 7,23,835
11. The assessment of compensation shall be
proportionate to the gravity of the injury, injury
affecting the life of the petitioner and his earning
capacity, money spent towards treatment and also
the medical evidence with reference to the money
required for future treatment. Hence, the petitioner
has to be compensated at Rs.80,000/- towards pain
and sufferings. Medical expenses of Rs.4,85,435/-,
incidental expenses at Rs.25,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal are kept intact. Towards loss of amenities
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
and discomfort, he has to be compensated at
Rs.60,000/-. The nature of injury will make the
petitioner to be laid-up for minimum of 6 months,
but the Tribunal did not consider to award any
compensation towards it. At the rate of Rs.9,000/-, it
comes to Rs.54,000/-. PW-5 Dr. S.A. Somashekhar,
the treated Doctor has made an estimate of
Rs.35,000/- for future medical expenses. Hence, it
has to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
12. As regarding loss of future earnings is
concerned, since the petitioner is aged 67 years,
there is no question of adding future prospects.
The income is taken at Rs.9,000/-, whole
body disability at 20% and '5' as the
applicable multiplier, it comes to Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 5
x 20% = Rs.1,08,000/-. Then, total compensation
comes to:
Sl. No. Particulars Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings 80,000
2 Medical expenses 4,85,435
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
3 Incidental expenses 25,000
(conveyance, nourishment and
nutritious food)
4 Loss of income during laid-up 54,000
period
5 Loss of future earnings 1,08,000
6 Loss of amenities and discomfort 60,000
7 Future medical expenses 35,000
Total 8,47,435
Total compensation comes to Rs.8,47,435/- as
against Rs.7,23,835/-, thereby enhancement of
Rs.1,23,600/-. This is the just compensation that
the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, the appeal merits
consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) Impugned judgment and award is
modified.
iii) Petitioner is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,23,600/-.
iv) The K.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit
the compensation with 6% interest
p.a. excluding interest on delayed
NC: 2024:KHC:1833
period of 54 days, Rs.15,000/- paid
as interim compensation and future
medical expenses of Rs.35,000/-
within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the
judgment.
v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
