High Court Karnataka High Court

N Ramu S/O Late Narayanappa vs The Divisional Manager Karnataka … on 21 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
N Ramu S/O Late Narayanappa vs The Divisional Manager Karnataka … on 21 October, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2181' DAY OF OCPOBER, 2Q

: PRESENT :

TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K~. 1--P}j1f:1L%.t.j: _ 3

AND 

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JU-sjrxcfi1{;'s.KE:vi*PAi§fNA"_i'; 

M.F.A.NO. 624%"C) F :zv0os'(M_u\:_/J1'  

Between:

N.Ramu   _ .
S/0. Late Nara3ca1*:app§»;a, I 
Aged 36 years,  . .  
R/at N0. 93,   
S1gapur. .    ¢_
V1dyanayap'ura Past,  
Bar1ga1ore--9C!,_.. N  

{By Sfi; Shripad;V;;S1;ia--stfi«=. Advocate}

The Divisiqnal Manager,

. A 'Karnataka State Road Transport
  VC0'rpV0r_at10tn3 IQH. Road,
._ Banga1t):e~2.7;"

[By  -KfZ'Nagaraja, Advocate]

*$****

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1)

.. . Appellant

... Respondent

of MV Act against the

“-V ‘J’J.’dgIf1€1’lt and Award dated: 28/02/2005 passed 1n MVC
No.7’59 / 2003 on the file of the VI Add]. Small Causes Judge
5 and MACT, Bangalore [SCCH–2}, partly ailowing the claim

petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation. .

This MFA coming on for Hearing,
N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following: . 0′ 5 . V.

JUDoMeNr,nbI

This appeal by the cl>airnant._is’directed V’

impugned judgment and laarriard dat.e_d”*,?..8il?v_l5ebruaryV

2005, passed inVf M.,v.e,i§i1(§,i#a§;’–2ooa,0l”byt the VI
Additional Sniall Causes Accident
Claims (for short,
Tribunal: 0′ compensation on the
ground of $75, 140/ – awarded in
his faifoiirt as’- claim for $06.00 lakhs, is
in2_;§1equate.”‘ ~ it

appellant claims to be aged about 34

‘-years, Working as driver of Auto, and earning a sum of

3530,0000,/4’ éber month. He was hale and healthy prior to

2 the date of accident. That at about 6:30 A.M., on 15-

AV§l’2N–2002, on K.K. Road, near Shivananda Circle,

Bangalore, the appellant met with an accident on

A

account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of

offending bus bearing No.KA~o7/E561. As aresjult of

the same, the appellant fell down

grievous injuries, such as fracture

sinus, fracture of right frontal b:one_”ar1d anteriolr :c::a’ii,i_al

fossa, diffuse cerebral oe.d”erna vvith.

damage to eye sight,,.etc.

3. It is the case of that on account
of the he has taken

treatment in’ the Hospital as in-

patie’rit’,”‘duringlli$vliic’l1;perio’d,'”h’e has spent considerable:

amount «.towards,conveggance, nourishing food and

attendant “chargeslincluding medical expenses and other

Aiiicide’ntal expelnsesl and the Doctor has assessed whole

at 40% and the Ophthalmologist has

a’s_ses_serlf.w30% disability towards visual blindness and

., therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.

4. On account of the injuries sustained in the

accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the

%W

I

Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of ?06.00

lakhs against the respondents. The said elairrrpetition

had come up for consideration before the_.7_l’ribiQ1r2r,@’]’\li.-91;,

28″” February 2005. The Tribunal, after.::(:onsivd¢I’i.ng=

the relevant material available defile.

appreciation of the oral” and docurnent.ar3§r_’evidence.,0′

allowed the claim petitionpr.inA”‘par’t.,’ awa1*d.i1’1g,Ea sum of
?’75,140/ — with intereslt’at’ from the date
of petition 0′ deducting 50%
towards the part of the
appelllantrl. with the quantum of
the Tribunal and also

contributory’ nregligenee fixed at 50% on the appellant,

appellantlVis””in appeal before this Court, seeking

of compensation and to set aside the

negligence fixed on him.

5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant

and learned counsel for Corporation for considerable

length of time.

6

and agony. It is stated that he has taken treatment for

a total period of ll days in the Hospital. Durir.ig.this

period, he must have spent some arno1_.i.:n’t’*«

conveyance, nourishing food and att.e’ndant'”ch’arges;”,

apart from medical expenses. The.’_’doctor_ has assessed

the Visual disability at .4€:J°/oh inll’

respect of whole body. assessed
the said disability atlll lower side and
needs to be regard to
the nature the percentage of
visual \Kf1’tl*1″the age and the fact that
the vire re–assess the whole body

disabilityhiaij’ 30}?/o;’–._to’~”‘lrr1eet the ends of justice. The

paplpeiAleant.y.p being””aged only 34 years, at the time of

endure this disability for the rest of his

life and find some difficulty in doing his work as

by effectiyely as before. Having regard to the nature of

l ‘;_l’inj*uries sustained in the accident, we presume that he

would have taken follow-up treatment and bed rest at

least for a period of three months. Since the appellant

%

Z, WWWM

was aged 34 years, the appropriate multiplier is ’16’ as

per the decision of the Horfble Apex: Court’,in»»_:S§ria

Verma’s case (2009 ACJ 1298).

into consideration all the above aspects re!

determine compensation by awarding_ s:i’rn”i:of

?10,000/– towards conveyance, Ariourishivngiffoodj

attendant charges as ?9,000/–

towards loss of incorne Permd» taking
the incomeiof ‘per month for a
period of /–, €40,000/-

‘€0wai’dS”‘ against ?30,000/- :
r1,7.é}8oo/4 12 x ‘I6’ x 30/ 100) towards

loss of f1iture.in*coir_1e””as against ?77,280/- awarded by

_andV’Va”‘”suir1 of ?20,000/– towards loss of

I V*discomforts, and unhappiness on account of

disab.,i1ity.§’.V-

8. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not

awarding any compensation towards future medical

expenses. Having regard to the nature of injuries

%….._…

sustained and the nature and duration of treatment, we
award a sum of ?10,()O0/- towards future…Vrl1e’dical

expenses.

9. However, a sum

Tribunal towards medieal_V.”e.xpen’ses is the’

medical bills produced and—-i–s:j11s”t..pand r’ea.son§able and

hence, it does not call for iizterierenhre _

10.2? faets’and circumstances of
the rjase’,”a.:$; stated ‘t’h’e”appeal filed by appellant

is allowed judgment and award

dated 28*}? _:Februaryl’é005, passed in M.V.C.No.759/

..thelVT”AVdditional Small Causes Judge and

Claims Tribunal, Bangalore {SCCH–2], is

h-e_re’oy’* lrnoddified, awarding a sum of ?2,95.800/– as

x against ?l.50,280/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest

l ‘;_VVat~ES”/o per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date

of petition till the date of realization. The breakwup is

as follows:

r_’_h___,_fl__,…_A

Towards Pain and sufferings 40,000/–

/\R»”H

Towards Loss of amenities 8:

20,000/_–

enjoyment in iife * ”

Towards Medical Expenses ? ‘«~;.~ V

Towards conveyance. nourishing ?

food and attendant charges

Towards Loss of earning during. A
treatment period p p __
Towards loss of future income A’ ?°i._V72,8O0L/W;

Towards future medical expenses” . T ?’ aWd}’Q..OOO}f~ ”

E2 .’ 1?2*,95,Sod/-

The appellant.is..;entit1’e’d’.to’ dcovtnpeinsation of
?l,47,900/– {i.e. after
deducting Vnegiigence on the
part of compensation
comes .9o0/- – €75,140/-) with
interest! from the date of petition till
date dd

The’=.__Corporation is directed to deposit the

._ VAV.t’co”n1pensation of ?72,”/’60/–, with interest

6% per annum, within four weeks from the

V A’ datevvof receipt of copy of the judgment and award.

On such deposit by the Corporation. out of the

H enhanced compensation of 372.760/–. 50% of it with

%W

proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed

Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Banka’-i,n~..the

name of the appellant, for a period of

renewable for another five years, p_errnissfio’n tovhirnu ” »

to withdraw the periodical interlestffll ”

The remaining 50% ofthe enha_need ~eornpensation~ V

with proportionate interest,_releas’ed .i.1~”1§ favour of
the appellant, immediately:

Office itotdraw

Sd/~
Edge

Sd/–

Judge