IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC'E-._B.SREEN1"VAS1§5 V DATED THIS THE 151 DAY OF DECEMBEZR. 20Q9t _' I PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 'V ' F. M.F.A.No. 669 origgoa BETWEEN: Imthiaz, _ ' S/o.M0h,a:'nad. Pe§:r, 1, Aged 4%;-.yea;'rs,__. No.48, 8?'."*--Ci*<)'::;s__a,b V" N . R. Gard'erig_ Chdluzf }?-alyajig " -- 13an;;a.1o'r¢~_.,5éso e_1 '1~ Pfé s_e m.1y 'r€_sVid.'1 1~1 h " ' . Ambwj. 1'ami_l Nadug' V" I V (It3y"'S1*iii.NufP.1fa\reen"Kun1ar, Advocrate) The _Managing Director, " .. BMTC Depot, Bangaiore -» 580 027. [By S1*§.M.H.Moi.igi. Adv0caI,e} Cchtral Office. KH Road. Appellant. ... Respondent
-J
»
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV ACE againsi the
judgment. and award dated 20.07.2005 passed in,-._M\/C
No.2172/2000 on the file of the learned Vi Add}. SCJ. 8:
Member, EVIACT. Court of Smaii Causes, BangaioreW(S_CCHu–
2), pariiy aiiowing the Claim petition for con1pen”s’a«!,.iOI1_0′ aJ_._1_d~.,
seeking enhancement of eomperisaiion.
This M.F.A. coming on fo1’v.<'r"i'e~.r:..ri&I1g'_4'K7
PATIL J, delivered the Iollowing:
ME V 3 W
This appeal is iijiudgment
and award dated "in MVC
No.2172/200O'A'o§vr tha7sV1ea.1§aei:i.Aj#§11%iaaaivsgjiadge, Court of
Small ijgganigaiore, (hereinafter
refe rred r.i:o_ 0' 7
judgment and award, the
TribunalVV°h4as., sum of Rs.2.88,000/w under
h"eads';'w__'1__t__hvinterest at 7% 13.21.. from 25.7.2003
' *;.i_}.l as against the claim made by the
apfjellaiaeviaifoiri' a sum of Rs.8.00.000/v. Being aggrieved
by said judgment and award, appeliant has
present.ed this appeal. seeking enhancement on the
groiind that. the amount awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate.
//»/’
3. In brief the facts of the case are:
The appellant is claiming that he is aged
years at the time of accident, working as
earning Rs.3.000/- per niont.h.__TVh_at o.ii”’2£ll.’4«,.2t)0Q ‘*
about 3.25 p.m., appellantfg 2 ‘ash
pedestrian on KR. Road’lfl’rvomx
Nagar from North.” to “w-h.en_i§ he was
proceeding infront Temple. at
that time, a C came
from the its in a rash and
negligenlt’ against him, due to
which:-.hle«l. injuries. Immediately, he
has?.beenll’admitted_ ilristhe hospital for more than five
rnonths and he has spent some reasonable amount. for
On account. of the injuries sustained by
the app’ellant in the said accident. he has filed a claim
.p;etitio.n; before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of
l “~V_lRs-3.00.000/~. The said claim petition had come up for
=’:considerat,ion before the Tribunal, which in turn, after
hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and
L
J
documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim
petition in part and awarded a sum Rs.2.88,OQ(l3.[~e._Vas
eornpensation under different heads with
p.a., from 25.7.2003 till its deposit. “~
by the said judgment and awrard:,’_”thel’ap’pe’llan:t~._has
presented this appeal, Venha.n(‘:e’m.eVrit3 of,”
compensation.
4. We have appearing for
the ap pellan 1;. i and it it appearing for
f’or””th-ellappellant. at the outset
submitted’. awarded by the
Tribunal llun_derV’v–.al1=_ the heads is inadequate and it
re«:}ui1it.es to be mlo”cii’fiVed.
;5{sl.:v”against this, learned counsel for the
re–s__pondenftéCorporation su brnitted that, the Tribunal on
_p1foper.:’consideration of the oral and doeurnentary
lfevidence on file. has awarded just and reasonable
-Veomper1sat.ion under all the heads and therefore, it does
not call for int;erferenee
/*”'”J”
5/”
7. After careful consideration of the submissions
made by tearned counsel appearing for both the parties
and after Careful perusal of the judgment and ayvard
passed by the Tribunai, the oniy point that
our consideration is:
Whether the compensation
the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 1 ‘ W
8. After careful perusal the A.1″n”ateria’I recjord.
it emerges that, in the thfatfioiecurred on
23.4.2000 at about has sustained
fracttirewoi of’._’Ie’ftKIeg, fracture of base of
5″‘ metaear–paI,~ ieft ankie ealeaneus and deep
1aCeI’_ated ‘vifou:nd…ove’r dorsum of left foot and medical
. 0. ”’sma1iéioi;s ofpthe lfeftfffoot, undergone amputation of left
“ttVhe.Vi_knee an~d he has taken treatment as
inpa,_tien'{.’ inore than five months and during the said
might have undergone pain and agony. T he
.f7{fVri»bu’na1 has awarded a sum of R_s.E30,000/- towards
~-pain and sufferings and the same is inadequate and it
needs to be enhanced, having regard to the nature of
er?/’
4,
the injuries sustained. nature and duration of the
treatment taken by the appellant. Therefore, we it
fit to award a sum of Rs.1.00.000/~– under _
instead of Rs.60.000/– awardedmhby
accordingly. it is awarded.
9. The Tribunal has.’ awardedafv«s1;m of,”
Rs.30.000/– towards ;_.medieal.:Ve§;pe’nsegd’wrkl,//Lt_hve same is
just and reasonable ‘lit interference.
10. a sum of
Rs. 10,000 nourishing food and
“”sande is inadequate and it
Iieedsvylitiollbe reason that. the appellant
has .t.aken”‘treatr’nent for more than five months and due
.0 V’ §;ni.put’ati.on”ol”‘t’he left leg below the knee. he was not
0′ Vin.ap.o’s.itior1_to discharge his duties and during the said
pe-r_iocl.~heA.j’.rnight have spent. some reasonable amount
towards’ the conveyance and other expenses. Therefore.
0′ ”-_V\V«’\’/’C~~’C”1CCI”I’1 it fit to award a sum of Rs.20.000/~ under the
-‘said head instead of Rs.10,000/~ awarded by the
Tribunal and accordingly. it is awarded.
‘9’/,,..
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs. 10.000/~ towards loss of income during the periodeof
treatment. by taking the income of the
Rs.2.000/– per month. The sam__e….is_’ina.deC;Atiavte””ar1d it”
needs to be enhanced. having ::egardii’~_to
occupation of the appeiiantia”1’1d due tothe a:inp.u.r;mon
of his left leg he was not to” dtschiarge his
duties. Therefore. wexdaire’-of Vi€W that. if
the income at Rs.2,500/–
per assessed by the
Tribu1jsiai.”it:A andreasonabie. Accordingly,
we talce appeliant at Rs.2,500/~ per
month and forfsix rhvonths it comes to Rs.15.000/–
towards loss of income during the period of treatment
vbvF§s:..1~i0,000/» awarded by the Tribunal and
aceord._ir1g§ty~”. it is awarded.
The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any
‘._c.ompensat.iori towards loss of amenities of iife and
d ‘ “therefore, it needs to be awarded. it is not in dispute
that. on account. of the injuries sustained by the
appellant. in the said accident, he has undergone
treatment for a period of five months as inpatiyerltjand
his left. leg was amputated below the
Doctor has assessed the disability we
accept the same. The appellant.
disability throughout his life”;~.._Thereior.e_, -‘lit
to award a sum of loss of
amenities of life and
13. l in awarding
Rs. 10,000]. and the same
is be enhanced, for the
reasori’–t’,hat,l cost. of the artificial limb as
on the l4d’a.te».o’f haclc-ildent would be Rs.25,000/–.
Aoleordingly’. we a’wa’1–d a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the
* of Rs.10.000/- awarded by the
Tribun val. A:
z The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
ll”~_VRs.–l’l,68,OOO/– towards loss of future earnings on
” ~-‘account of the disability by taking the income of the
appellant. at Rs.2,O0O/A» per month with disability at
4
-9-
50% and by adopting Multiplier of 14. The said amount
awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it nveeldpjsrto
be modified. We have already assessed t.he.;1f_
the appellant at Rs.2.500/– per_11″1Qnth_–‘a’n’d.:”ein’ee’-the
appellant is aged about 39 3:>’earfs’.*dt.he._’
Multiplier applicable to theevaae in hand.
of ‘l4′, as per the lavwpplaid bathe “Apex_iL3ourt in
the case of Sarla Vs. Delhi
Transport Cforippratiiplnléiariad in 2009
ACJ 1298;.’ .a’pHpe1lant is taken at
Rs.2.5OOV/#ipefirllllirigipbntii;;iirith”””disability at 50% and by
applyivngpll the total loss of future
earnings ¢”omies-t-o ARsV.lI2′.i25.OO0/- (2.500/W x 12 x 15 x
l 50’s/llOiO”} Rs.1.68.000/– awarded by the
Tr~ibun,lal..VanVd.accordingly. it is awarded.
lfE$..Vdl§iaving regard to the facts and circumstances
of _the”ease as stated above, the impugned judgment and
l Klawalrd passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
d it ‘”‘The total Compensation payable Comes to Rs.4,65.000/~
and the breakup is as follows:
V’_’m_~_w_’__d_~_,,,…»»
~10-
. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00.000/~
. Towards medical expenses Rs. 30,000./–
. Towards conveyance. nourishing
food and attendant Charges Rs.
4-. Towards loss of income during the * it 1′
C».’>N>é—–
period of treatment Rs: I}; ll
5. Towards loss of amenities of life… Rs. “5C.O0O’/- ”
6. Towards purchase of artificialilieg
7. Towards loss of future earnings T
16. Accordingly, the is allow_edl’l and
the impugned _ passed by the
Tribunal in MVCV granting
a” of Rs.2.88.000/–
(enhanced £5 Rs. 177,000/–). The
enhanced shall carry interest at 6% pa,
from theldatevvolf’ its realisation.
The respondent-Corporat.ion is directed to deposit
‘ the_en.hanced=.e_ompen.sation. with interest, within four weeks
ll receipt of the copy of this judgment and
award A ‘ 4’
t3ut of the enhanced compensation of
~, 50% with proportionate interest shall
Tube invested in the name of the appellant. in Fixed
.»w_a»W_»_’_____W,_..»»
deposit. in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank, for a
period of five years and renewable for another five ‘years.
The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw
accrued on it, quarterly.
The remaining 50% with’-._ prsQp.e:’rtio.ria.ltle li1″i:’t~e_re:3tAl
shall be released in favour’hf-._appe’il::irat.V irrl:riied»iate1y. 0ln,i*
deposit by the respondent~C0rpQ_rettiQn_,_V
ljraw the award! ll ‘