E
IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA;GQWIjA
AND
THE HON'}3LE '
M.F.A. NO. 928 1 /20OA5V.[MW ' A
1\/E.F.A. No. 5X19./2.006 (Mm -A
MFA No. 9281[05
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJLILA' :1MAPATHI::O?."-- A.
AOED"ABOm'. 32 $;'%jEARsg' _
R/AT';%1A1AN,AYA'-ANA}z.Am_,1' -
CARMEJLAROM POS~'i'_ ' __
BANGALORE m 5so"o35 APPELLANT
(By SR; P N NANVJVAREDDY, ADV.)
DIRECTOR
KARNf:ATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
.. OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR
DOUBLE ROAD. BA1\EGALORE-- 27
E' SR1 E NARALYANASWAMY
S/O ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
J;
..
7
4,
TOKEN NO. 4422, III DEPOT
KSRTC, BUS STAND
BANGALORE ** 560 009 RESPONDENTS
{BY SMT. SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1}
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OP-":Mx?j".ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD I ..'1"I-3,1835 _
PASSED IN MVC NO. 303/03 ON THE FILi3._O.¥3'=._THET»\{'I *
ADDL. SCJ AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE... ('SUCH-__2}'»
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM '_PET£'I_TI-ON -JFOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ,EN:HANC.EMEN'T__
COMPENSATION. I
MFA N0. 5ll9[O6
BETWEEN;
THE MANAGING DIREC.T_(jP, '
KS RTC,SHAN'1'HINAGAR'~AI _ _ -
DOUBLE ROA'D,';BANGALOREw 27
REPT. CH2I;E--F "LAW OFFICER
K S RIT C. BANGALORE . g APPELLANT
[By ADV. FOR R1]
AND=:» _
. . - M2X1\IJIiT'LA'Y,W/O' IEII/IAPATIII G
A ACED--TATf3»OUTv35 YEARS
' ~.. R,f.AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI
CARMELAIIIOM POST
BANGALORE -- 560 035 RESPONDENT
[BY S'R1__ P N NANJAREDDY, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S I73 III OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 1.8.8.05
I H PASSED IN MVC NO. 303/03 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
£
,--r
an
2
ADDL. SCJ AND MEMBER. MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLI'l"AN AREA. BANGALORE. (SCCl"lw2}
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs. 55,30,300/W 'WITH
INTEREST AT 7% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF
PE3TlTlOl\l T I LL DEPOSIT.
These Appeals coming on for admission, day,
A.S. BOPANNA.J., delivered the following : _
JUDGMENT
In M.F.A.No.928l/2005, I-e:h”e~c1aimatfifn’ls.sSlberolaz A
this Court seeking enhancement of the
as against the sum awardediby t1’ie_lMootor’1.:Aelcidentll
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore’l’l(for–lshlor_t thelV”l”‘ribunal’] in
MVC No.303/ 2003. award the
responde’nt~w ‘Cofr’ploratiofi–.’ is before this Court in
M.F.A.No”;5< l9" wilassailing the quantum of
conrpevnsation"as__awarded by the Tribunal. Since the
'eor1.'ec:–t_n"ess_ "or_ otherwise of the award passed by the
'l'ribunal'V-i}gfo.uld arise for Consideration in both these
appleallsgthe appeals are taken up together and disposed
ff this common judgment.
w:””
2. At the outset since the Transport
Corporation has called in question the award passed by
the Tribunal with regard to the quanVt;u:n*._V of
compensation, the contention urged in i.;i__s§_
Considered. if the same is Hanswered=the'”‘
Corporation, thereafter the queisticirifovotlldi
regard to the enhancernentl_of—flthe compenSati_on._ Thef
contentions urged theg_…llearr;;~evd Coungselli for the
appellant in MFA Transport
Corporation wo1;;l_d indicate tlie«i:.lgrieVance is with
regard to has been granted
by the Tribunalf.-~._:l regard, the Tribunal has
granted ‘l2,.l3’9,34O/M as per the medical bills
roun’ded..vof the same to Rs.2,l0,000/«.
pl learned Counsel for the appellant contends
that the ought not to have been granted, a perusal
of the rezasons indicated by the Tribunal would indicate
medical bills which were produced and marked
Whave been looked into by the Tribunal and on finding
ii
-‘,’.’
5
that the nature of the injuries requires such treatment:
and there was nothing to doubt the said medical
evidence and the bills, the Tribunal has awarded the
said sum. Even in this appeal also, there is~jr’1’of’otl’i.er
rnai:e1*ial placed before this Court. to
and genuineness of the said miedlical. b§_lls_. asvsuoh
in that regard, the contention
in the said appeal cannot bel:accepted_lanad.=
awarded by the Tribunal bills” is held to
be justified.
” l llthecontention put forth by the
appellantin 2005 arises for consideration
Witllll. enhancement as claimed by the
—in order to consider this aspect of the
“ma:£er,lpe1′;r;ei~usa1 of the papers would indicate that the
claimant who is a lady and working as a tailor has
siift’ered the following injuries:
l
W’
6
Fracture of shaft femur (Right)
ii. Type 3 Compound Injury {Right} Hip
iii. Cornminuted fracture lower
with dislocation of ulnar it
iv. Head injury with at
V. Anterior chip f7’ac_turel’of
Vi. Displaced l_ {Right}
superior _ ranis fracture.”
The Doctor treat-ed had been
examined§.befo_re:t*he’ and the wound
certificate ais__0_ mar.l_§ed’asVrV_E5x.P6 in evidence. The
discharge “inarked as Ex.PlO. In addition
to the salrriel, the .tre.a’tnjl~ent as rendered to the claimant
hasd?:be_er1VVy_stated3:1y’the doctor and the disability has
been s3;a’i;ed 57%. Considering the nature of the
are the opinion that a sum of Rs/$0,000/–
as awarded by the Tribunal towards pain. agony and
is on the lower side and the same requires to
32
Ty’
#-
be enhanced to Rs.5O.OO0/W instead of Rs.40,000/~ as
awarded by the Tribunal. H T.
4. With regard to the Compensation
towards food, conveyance and attendants
same is on the lower side andhas’ suC,h_t’at._surn of
Rs.20,0OO/W is awarded jjnsteuad R§;Jte11%o;0oo’t,§*t..gig,
awarded by the Tribunal. the’
nature of the injuriesand lady had
also suffered pubic fraeturet a Case, even
though the ;eo’rn._I:§ensatio11″‘:is””awa’rded under the other
heads},,’a’– — requires to be awarded
under the head 7.’of«…~~”loss of amenities since no
eo,in’pensa,tion has….been awarded by the Tribunal. under
ht’ L’ ‘V staid’ h_e’a –.
The next question with regard to the
eonipensatiozn towards the loss of future income would
have to be considered. In this regard, it is noticed that
32
at’
P’
the Tribunal has reckoned the income at Rs.18,000/-
p.a. as notional income and it would be in a of
Rs.1.500/– per month. Considering that
was working as a tailor and even in the _c~as.efef a.:C«oo1ie,-».
when this Court has been reckonizragratythe
monthly wage at Rs.3,000»/l~;«–_.in the iristai:i:tll’case Hallsolg
sum of Rs.3,OO0/A per -to In
that View, if the ll”isv’:..:recl§oned and the
disability as at 57% to the
limb is taltelnxlatllllleast the disability
at 20% releiltoiiled being about I /3″‘ of
the “l the doctor. Further,
coiisiderin-gll the ~__age the claimant, the multiplier
wo’ti1dEhaV__e toAAbevvre.c’ko11ed at 16. If the said parameters
the appropriate multiplier of 16 is
claimant would be entitled to the sum of
Rs.1,”1yvbLi.200/- under the head of loss of future income
of a sum of Rs.51,300/- as awarded by the
V’ Tribunal. %
u-””
p.
9
6. Since we have now indicated the income to
be at Rs.3,OOO/W per month, the cornpensation awarded
towards loss of income during laid up period xvo11l_l’d_:l_also
have to be enhanced in terms of the same.__=:..
sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded…»u.nder”Mtheiiisaidlleadll
instead of Rs.9.000/~ as awarded
addition to the same, thevivpllétrriourit.__aWar=deCl””towardsl”V
medical expenses and future’ rnedlical expenses is also
sustained.
thVeeVd.clac_irna11t/ appellant in all would
be entitleld–._Vto- total…leompensat.ion of Rs.4.63,200/~.
Tribun.al«’ha.s already awarded a sum of
the claimant would be entitled to be
.o’i5’i..Rds.1.32,9O0/- by way of enhancement with
inter€SVt_A’i~at 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till
The enhanced portion of the compensation
__shall be deposited by the respondent/Corporation
3;
p
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The statutory deposit be
transferred to the Tribunal.
In terms of the ab0Ve_.,»~~the
No.9281 / 2005 is allowed in parr;’a::§_ri
No.51 19 / 2006 stands order: a;s{fo”r:osts ” V
V