IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 67'" DAY OF' OCTOBER, 200.9,
: PRESENT :
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. 9A?r:Lf:j
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ._
M.F.A.1\IO.17E5AR'.7LO.§'
BETWEEN: A
Junaid, '
S/o Abdu1_Azee1f,... _ '
Aged. A
Resident of 31-Shampur Main"Road,
1ShiVaji1i%19,ar;'.«. A
I:'>a1:1gai'o1_"e .. ~_ 'A _ A A
Appellant
[By;Smfc.V.xSho_V he for $mt. Umadevamma M.C.,
'. ..... ..
A V The'P;?Iai'1aging Director,
KSRTC Bhavan,
"S_h:1nthinagar,
KH Double Road,
A V. Bangalore.
V' {By M / S. Angadi Associates, Advocates)
. . Respondent
94
t
K “””‘”””‘””””””‘””W”””””””
/9
This MFA is filed U/ S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated:28/O9/ 2005 passed in-.._MVC
No.520/2004 on the file of the VI Addl. SCJ & Member,
MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, [SCCIfi.7~2),,””1:i’artly
allowing the claim petition for compen;s_ation;’p’—-.
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for iiearmg
FATIL J., delivered the following: A” V’
J U VI%:,=N”Tt ”
This appeal against the
judgment and award ‘AS_eptember 2005,
passed in Afile of the Motor
Accident 3 sllgajrigalore ( Tribunal’ for
short .coinpensation on the ground
that, ‘tar Rs.66,880/– awarded in
favour of the plaimyant appellant by the Tribunal as
of Rs.O8 lakhs, is inadequate.
._ 2′; in brief are that, the appellant is a
A . profession. That on 17–O1~2004, at about
2. vP.,_lp\/l,VV’i7vhen he was going along with his friend in the
‘A’iflero»Puch, near Ulsoor — Murphy road near Tharnakai
/, WWWM
Kannan Road, at that time, a BMTC bus bearing
Registration No.KA–O1/F-12060 ceune from right, a
rash and negligent manner and dashed
appellant, as a result of which,_the_ it
sustained grievous head injury zandgalso :fract.ure
tibia.
3. On account of in the
accident, the appellant’ before the
Tribunal seeififig of Rs.08.00
iakhs against’ The said claim
petition “”-cerisideration before the
Tribufiérlg 2005. The Tribunal, after
consideringvthveVrelevaritimaterial available on file and
w aftefrflappreciatiodn’ of-the oral and documentary evidence,
a}Jowedv–.,t}ie”~ciaim petition in part, awarding a sum of
interest at 7% per annum from the
V7.V__dr_,date cfrpetition till the date of reaiization. Being
“:,dis:satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this
Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appiellpant
submitted at the outset that, the
committed an error in not awarding just.an..d’freas:onable–« ..
compensation towards pain and ,..siivfferrings-, =a;_ci’
future income, conveyanc-e__, nourishing Ifvoopd and”
attendant charges, loss of inco1r1e.V_during_’the period of
treatment and future Virinedicagivvexpenses and hence, it
requires enhancement” ‘unider the’ “heads. Further,
he submitted :’theTribi;,;.na1, “has erred in not
awardlirigl’ any ¢ompensa:ion towards loss of amenities of
life even ltllough -the Doctor has assessed the disability
in respevet—«of the left lower limb and 12% in
whole body and claimant has been
adrnittedlasiinpatient on two occasions in the Victoria
Hospital, for a period of 42 days. It is the case of the
that having regard to the nature of injury,
which is permanent in nature, the Tribunal ought to
have awarded just and reasonable compensation.
3. We have heard the learned COllI1Sl:E.f1.>_”‘I-CO1’
appellant for considerable length of time.
4. After careful evaluation of. the .’original records
available on file, threadbare,
and award passed by the the that” V
arise for our consideration
“Whether t’?1éta.warded by
the Tribunal isjueset,.ctn.d’ proper%?”””* ”
The of the case are, that on
account uof._Vth.evlaeeideritthat occurred on 17301-2004,
th.¢_”§’«:.appellant’A”‘has_.esustained head injury and also
‘ tibia and has been admitted to the
Vlictoriahiilospital on two occasions for a period of 42
days: vvllfis per the evidence of the Doctor, PW2, the
ff -appellant has suffered dis bility of 35% in respect of the
left lower limb and 12 ‘ respect of the whole body.
_m___fi___M,_”,,,……..
6. The Tribunal has erred in taking the income of
the appellant at Rs.1,500/– per month, without any
justification and without assigning convincing reasons.
The accident occurred during 2004. Therefore,
of the then Notifications of * the Centra1.–:_:’and.’
Governments, we deem it fit and; a,pprop-riateiitjg ‘ii/:al§e,Vti3Ve””
monthly income of the appellant ~
appellant was aged 19 aslon the-it
accident and the Tribunal—–lh’a-s”‘-rightly-adopted ’18’
multiplier. The Docior~ the permanent
disability it thedvwhole body at 12%.
Accordingly,’ tainfngiillpermanent disability at 12%,
month1yx’i’income__ at ‘«…uRs.3,000/– and adopting ’18’
w’e’vv—–..aWard a sum of Rs.77,760/–
12 X 18 X 12/100) towards loss of
futfire incoirilie.
1 A sum of Rs.3,000/– awarded towards loss of
iricome during the period 0 treatment appears to be on
” lower side. We have t the income of the appellant
– ..wm_.___..
at Rs.3,000/~« per month. Having regard to the fact
that the appellant was in–patient for a period of 42_days
and has taken fo11ow~«up treatment, we award
Rs.9,000/– towards loss of income during the
treatment. .
8. The Tribunal has’~aISo erred
any compensation towardsrwAt”1o’sié: of>amenities”‘of life on
account of disabilityr 1.1ndijspi;ted that. the
appellant has ‘isig_1Vgsta1’n_ed§ other injuries.
On account fioctor has assessed the
disabtiityd’ at in respect of the left lower
limb and’d”–«1d2’«’/op’i11_ of the Whole body. The said
unhappiriess and–discomfort persists through his life.
He “has_”un’dergone one surgery and needs one more
operation’fori”removal of implants. He was in patient for
a period of 42 days. The efore, having regard to all
aspects, we dee ‘t fit to award a sum of
…….._-nv-v»v–~”””””‘”””””‘”””‘”””‘MW’
Rs.20,000/– towards Loss of amenities of life on account
of disability.
9. A sum of Rs.5,000/– awarded
Medical expenses appears to be-‘o’n”a. lower. side
regard to the nature of injuries l’st1stain–ed .
duration and nature of treatment. Keepi1*ig”‘_inl”:riew that, V
the appellant requires one nioreli.lQ;iler’ation for removal of
implants, we award a it of — towards
future medical ‘ e;_<pens_esg l of». 5, 000 / –.
10.” “surri of Rs.2.000/– awarded
towards is concerned, the same is just
‘~ andlreasonablell’and-«does not call for interference.
11l,l’lle§i;:_:*.i:the light of the facts and circumstances of
the case; the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part.
impugned judgment and award passed by the
” H 2005
._’_I’ribuna1 dated 2801 September 2009 passed in
‘1″‘tfM**r§’ee:teacted v. czhamber
‘ap”,9rder dt.23.10.2Gfi9.
10
M.V.C.No.520/2004 is hereby modified awarding a sum
of Rs.1,58,760/- as against Rs.66,880/- awarded by the
Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annnm from étheidate
of petition til} the date of realization.’ The
foliows:
i) Towards pain and sufferings’—,’ ..:’Rs;._’
ii) Towards medical expense’s~…. d
iii) Towards loss off_income..__u:”v.._ ‘
During the period of treatrn_ent V .. Rs. O9,000/-
iv) Towards loss of 77,7 80 / –
V) Towards no
Food; at-tend<ajn_t charges ' Rs. 1 0,000/-
vi) Towams 1:é§es,Aggb:iityfar;dd’
loss ofoikrnenities’ ‘iife Rs. 20,000/–
Vii) ‘ Towards rriedical expenses Rs. 10,000/–
Total RS.1,58,’760/~»
‘Fhe*’:’respondent — Corporation is directed to
deposit” the enhanced compensation of Rs.91,880/- With
n..__………,….,.,….,_……~..–«-sq»
I1
6% interest thereon, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On deposit of such sum by the tiie’=
Tribunal shall release the sa.;11e_-~aiI:1 ifavott-r i:he
appellant, immediately.
Office is directed to draw avqard, a(3co’i’Vding1y.
ea/5;