IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2137 DAY OF OCTOBER. 2010, : PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. P£;'3fi1;" . AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I-;A;s.iKEn/'iPANN;:gj-T M.F.A.NO. 4541.9? 2605 ;Mvg< " Between: ' A Sri. Vaiyyapillai ._ VT 1 S/o. Picha @ Pichakaram, Aged about 33 years, _ ' Residing at _ V T _ . ._ C/o. K. Shanmugharn, f 21"' Cross, ;J".'PINeiga7r;*_, V V ' 2"" Phase} 7 V' " ' BangeT}ore'%56v(:)V V h " ' _ '-- Appellant [By Smt. Sree_Vidya,._.for Sri. T.N. Viswanatha, Advocate] _ » ':i'i1eVV'ioe'«Ch;;iir1jaan and ' Managi_i1.g JZ)i1°::c_t.or, Andhrav Pfadesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, ' ' Hyderabad. '._v(%By"Sri. D.Vi_3'ayakumar, Advocate} ... Respondent
*=7Ni=**$
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 21/02/2005 passed .131.» MVC
310.3521/2003 on the file of the VI Addl. SCJ a,r1.d”-.13/EACT,
Bangalore {SCCH–2), partly allowing the elaimpppppetiltidn for
compensation and seeking enhancement of cornpehsatieii;-V__ _
This MFA coming on for I-Iea.ri«rz.gl;:’§:”..V
N.K. PATIL. -1., delivered the following;
This appeal by the against the
impugned judgment;=fa11_d 2181 February
2005, passed- in by the VI
Additional Claims Tribunal,
Bangaldre ‘Tribunal’ ) for
enhan–ce1*nentlllC-f’-<:e1nperi'satiOn on the ground that, the
compensatioia ef_ awarded in his favour as
clai'1'n..f0.r?O5.OO lakhs, is inadequate.
appellant claims to be aged about 32
yeai's andlriwcirking as coolie, earning a sum. of ?3,000/–
per He was hale and healthy prior to the date of
l aeeident. That at about 10:30 A.M., on 15-0e-2003,
when the appellant was standing by the side of A.V.
Road and waiting for the bus, to return to his residence
AM
from his work place, and when he was aboutwto get
inside the bus that had come to the stand, at trltattirne,
a APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.A–El–~ll
came from east to west on the
negligent manner and came on'1«the.A_' [extreme sicle" o'f_;t'iie
said road and dashed again._s"t~»..him,""as a.revsu'l.tV'of'which',"
he fell down and sustainedgggrieiroiisoi inj1iries..
3. It is the that he has
spent considierablegg ‘_j .. conveyance,
nourishing’ charges including
and”-vothei'”incidental expenses and
thereilorel. he reasonably.
_ 4. li’On” the injuries sustained in the
the ‘appellant filed the claim petition under
“of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the
compensation of a sum of ?O5.00
lakhs .against the respondents. The said claim petition
hadrfcome up for consideration before the Tribunal on
let’ February 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the
relevant material avaiEa%on file and after appreciation
I //M
E
of the oral and documentary evidence, aliowed the claim
petition in part, awarding a sum of ?65,500/ff-{with
interest at 7% per annum from the date oil
the date of deposit, after de<it:ctin_gllliVj"{)l:?3'{o4
contributory negligence on the;
Being dissatisfied with theivpjllquantum ‘coi;iipei1sati0n’V
awarded by the also the’v-..contributory
negligence fixed on the appellant
is in appeal..taefore enhancement of
compensation, ” V
counsel for appellant
and learned ,.-‘Corporation for considerable
length oi A l =
56.. ‘~AfterlHhe’a’ring learned counsel for the parties
of the judgment and award passed by
‘IAribunal:inclluding the original records placed before us,
Awe are: of the View that, the Tribunal, after proper
l’ ‘assessment of oral and documentary evidence available
at file, has rightly fixed the contributory negligence on
the part of the appella t at 10% and we uphold the
AM
same. It is not in dispute that the appeilant was aged
about 32 years at the time of accident and Was”
as COOli€. The Tribunal has erred in as–ses,singi,ti1el’v,
income of the appellant at ?i~,5O(‘)/M
318,000/~ per annum. I-Iavinig”.Vre’g’.§f,a:rd to
avocation and the year of.._vy4aecident.,__ we relliavssess the’
income of the appellant to meet
the ends of justiced” has sustained
fracture to jtlie; 2 abdomen and
there is of the said injuries, he
wouidhavei pain and agony. It
is stated’ that “treatment for a total period
of 9_daysl”i-nythe’,-Hospital. During this period, he must
” V’ have 2,_spent reasonable amount towards conveyance,
i».fo_’_od and attendant charges, apart i from
rr1edicaI.e§gpenses. The Doctor has assessed disability
Atowards’ spine at 45%, and 22% towards whole body,
the Tribunal has rewassessed the Whoie body
V. ..,/disability at 15%, which is just and proper and we
accept the same. In V’ W of the said disability, the
E
(3
appellant, being aged only 32 years, has to pull on the
life with this disability for the rest of his life and he
cannot do the work as he was doing before,” Hiaying
regard to the nature of injuries sustai_ne’dy_
accident, we presume that he would have’v–t:al:en:i’olVlow–“ww
up treatment and bed rest at least:_-for
months. Since the appellant«–..waslll
the appropriate multiplier -as per decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Clo’u,.tltg.ir1.gSaxfla’rVei’ma’s case (2009
ACJ 1298]. A-ccordiirigiyji consideration all
the above. “v..ie’*-re–de’terinine compensation by
awarding a’ towards conveyance,
nourishing. food’, andldattendant charges as against
g?9,lOlHOO”;”‘-‘l towards loss of income during
taking the income of the appellant at
month, for a period of three months as
again”st__l7~ ?4,500/~, $20,000/~ towards pain and
l”lill_gAsV1,1_tferings as against $15,000/W ; ‘<'86,400/– [i.e.
__§l3,000/– X 12 X 'I6' X 15/100} towards loss of future
income as against ?43, /~; and a sum of 120,000/–
MMM_,_,…,.
towards loss of amenities, discomforts, and
unhappiness on account of disability.
7. However, a sum of
Tribunal towards medical expenses’X1}u.st,4_’
reasonable and does not call for”inte_rferen~ce’. _ ‘V A ~ A
8. In the light of the_:g”farcts and ciggrlc-t.:1r’n:st’ances oft’
the case, as stated above,’gt-h–e:’ap’peal iiledv.by–Eappellant
is allowed in part. and award
dated 21s: inVV’V”M.V.C.No.3521/
2003, by; Motor Accident
Claims’ (SCCH–2), is hereby
modified; ?1,50,400/– as against
$72,7’00/¥’award’edibyfllribunal, with interest at 6% per
on the ‘errhanced sum, from the date of petition
till realization. The breakwup is as follows:
“i’cwards_Pain_ and sufferings ? 20,000/–
Towards Loss of amenities 81 enjoyment in ? 20,000/ ~
life
Towards’ Medical Expenses ? 05,000/–
it Towards conveyance. nourishing food and ? 10,000/~
l ‘gatteridant charges
–period
‘i?owards Loss of earning during treatment ? 09,000/–
Towards ioss of future income 1 ? 86.400/~
Tota ,, ?’1,50,400/-
I
M
T he appellant is entitled to a total compensation of
?l,35,360/» (Le. ?3.,50,4oo/_ – ?15,04o,}¢j.;’p_’_fdgefter
deducting 10% towards contributory on
part of the appellant. The
comes to ? 69,860/- {i.e.§’l_.35,A35’0″/- –
interest at 6% per annum,’ll°1=o’t11 _theld-ate ‘of petition till
the date of rea1ization._§”:«- ‘ l I ‘V
The Corporatvio.n,:’_ deposit the
enhanced” –, with interest
thereonvatv,6t%1’}_1ger four weeks from the
date judgment and award.
the Corporation, out of the
enhanced compensation of ?69,860/-, 50% of it with
*;proportio1aa”te_’ interest shall be deposited in Fixed
Nationalised or Scheduled Bank, in the
nanlcteoflxthe appellant, for a period of five years.
‘~ Aprenewable for another five years, with permission to him
‘to withdraw the periodi ‘nterest.
The remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation
with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of»
the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly}-<
BMV*