Karnataka High Court
B Raghavendra Rao @ Raghu S/O B S Rama Rao vs The Deputy Manager United India ... on 27 August, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KAR R 301, 2010 A I H C 1325
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
MEA.N('::.'i€Lé9 .2006
A 1 A
"NW '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 271% DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
PRESENT 4' 1'
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE K.L.MANJVIfIN.€AT1»i'_Gv.. "'
AND
THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE "
Qgéoog;
BETWEEN: O'
B RAGHAVENDRA RAG _
s/O B s RAMA RAG" _ jy ;V .,
AGED ABOUT 45 NO'; ':07; *
RMV ExTENs1ON';--_ BANGALORE:..5.eOo8@,THROUGH
THE NEXT FRIEND MES SUJATHA RAO
\v}O'. 'E.'i2AG£3:AvENi)RA EAO; AGED ABOUT
43 YEARs,V.E.,zAT_ NO322, -2ND CROSS, 2ND
BLOO4K,RMv~11<.s'1*AGE, BANGALORE -94
.. . APPELLANT
* _ [By:_:Sri;_ .xk.G_R1NI{fA*------EAGHAVAN, K. SRINIVAS 5: PRITI-ISHRI
VKL¥1»\/HER; .A:)vs,]
1 T1e_I1~:; DEPUTY MANAGER,
..UN._ITE13 INDIA INSURANCE co LTD
A' _ REGIONAL OFFICE,
' 'v._sHANKARANAYARAYANA BUILDING
V' - BANGALORE (INSURED AT ITS DIVISIONAL
OFFICE NO} 1, CHENNAI)
V ":2 AM NAVEEN
PROPRIETOR
M/ S BHARATHI BUS SERVICES
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE
E.
éfif
MEA.NO.'i149.'200*6
3 RAVi
S/O. DORAISAYAMY N UDDIS
N09, S.S. IYENGAR ROAD
ALVARPET
CHENNAI -- 18
1-
(By Smt: HARINISHIVANANDA, AsV,..F_QR Hi)" " = I .
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173 (1) OF' AC1' AQAI1\Is<I:
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED': 1E5_.9.2005_vPASSE1)._.Ii'{I.
MVe.No. 2223/1999 ON THE FIi;--E OvF~.THE"; XII
ADDLSMALL CAUSES JUDGE, at ,MEMi3EI§;"'-e~.i.=IAcT,"V
BANGALORE (SCCH--8), pARTLYf~ALLoWIN(§-- CLAIM
PETITION FOR ctQMPEN.sAfI'IoN_c "SEEKING
ENHANC EMENT or (:<:')1:\'/i..uI§_JiaI\%'sAfifII'-.>N.,' ' - .. _
This MFA coming 'on on this day.
MANJUNATH J, delivered 'tl1e"'fol'iojWin5,:'r
M EVVN '1'
This is a' cla_irn_ar1t7«s"~appeal. The claim petition was
iiledaby s'fi.I3'.i>.aghaI:eiidI~a @ Raghu through his wife
V' .ASuj':atha;s.:asvi.lA1e hasbeeome disabled on' account of 100% less
_ of n1er1'1.Qry. "d_u'e to injuries sustained in a road traffic
accident!."vCi1"I::2.7.1999 at about 12.15 p.m. The claimant
was driving his car near paiamakalupalle Village on
A C' 'f3ai*igarupalayam--Palamner road 01:1 account of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.KA--O2 9229,
'dashed against his car. as a result of which he sustained
grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Chittoor
Hospital and thereafter to Christian Medical College
i
MEA.N0.*3.'.t49.2006
Hospital. Vellore. He was there as an inpatient from
2.7.1999 to 19.7.1999. He was shifted from Christian
Medical College Hospital, Vellore to Bangalore. H-e.._»wa_s
treated by Dr.RaInanarao and V " - A
Dr.E3.P.i\/Iruthyunjayanna, a well known Neurologistv,-A..lV: "-99 _
2. The claimant was working as an Executive::§}irect--or in " 'V
a company known as Vishnu Forgerrlridustries
Bangalore and he was drawing a salary' of
addition to other perks.
3. adrnitting the insurance policy
contended' that 'did not occur on account of rash
and negligent. driving the bus.
4. Vtria1"l'cou.ri.:«'frarned the following issues for its
' C:.orisidera*tionf"*
a). h the petitioner proves that the accident
occurred 'on3*2.7.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of bus bearing No.KA--O2 9229'?
ff 'T Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
--..so.. what is the amount of compensation? And who is
responsible for the payment of compensation?
C] What order?
W
£~:EA.N0.{Li£l9.2OG6
5. In order to prove their respective contention-s__, on
behalf of the claimants, the wife of the clain2arit:"g:'-§&a,s
examined as PW. 1, Dr.Ramana --jF<ao. , " r- it V'
Dr'B.P.Mrutyunjayanna were examined. as aii.djon'e it
Divakar was examined on behalf
Limited as pw.4. The c1aim'é.l1it~.,,?e1:eai' '3E3or,1'P32." t'
On behalf of the insurance cornpaiiy no oral evidenée was let
in. However, the insuraiiee.po.licj}fWas llmailied as Ex.R1.
6. The Tribunal consid'er_ing_ the-"evidence let in by the
parties" held. iirlvlllaflfirrnative and awarded
Compensation of along with interest at 6% p.a
from the date of.p'etit1--on'*~till realization. Not being satisfied
'~ Viaward of 'th--e--«'I'ribunal the present appeal is filed for
V enhaneerrieritAnofcompensation on various heads.
.' A We rraj3rei:'heard the Counsel for both sides.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
trial covurt has committed a serious error in not considering
'.__tii€'_ actual Income of the claimant and his future prospectus
_nv_\_§€hile determining the compensation under the head of loss
of future earning capacity and that the Compensation
as?
MEA.N0.i1é9.200€
awarded under the medical expenses, incidental charges,
future medical expenses, attendant charges andv,l;oss~.._of
amenities of life are also on lower side. 'Fb}erefore.___l' hex' .
requests the court to re-appreciate the entri1*e've\}:idbei1.oe-- Aand
award just and proper compensation, 3 V
8. Learned counsel for the respondent subniits.
compensation awarded by the--v.fl'i*ibunalvisV 'proper it and does not cal} for any.interfer*'en"ee.ll'
9. Having heard theeounseietorfithevparties, the only point forlour»ieonsideration is as to whether the eomperisationlawarded' Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for anypinterference.
10. VConsidering the documents produced before the :::u§re is no dispute with regard to the age of the 'nature of injuries and 100% disability caused to v--..on='account of loss of memory power and other . it ' = _f'1nji1_.1'iesV' to the body. .1' ,_ '''';The Tribunal has recorded the following injuries as per l Ei§;.P3:
es' M§A.NG.1149.°ZOC6 "Left fronto parietal acute subwdural haematoma producing midltne shift of 1. 1c.m -rind. ejfjbzcing the brainstem cisterns: respiratory:e~'i*racE:.___l' 5 _._' infection, coma scale, Laceration involving then." "
right pinna.
PW.2 in his evidence has stated laccordzxntll injuries sustained by the clainiant fronto parietal 'eranicctomy 'V V and evacuation of the haematotna. done,l_:v§y_operation the damaged portion "'vvasl»"rernoved and the claimant has lost' his optic nerve.
He has also thei lisiiot able to take care of his own iaffaicrsgyaslllheitsuffershl its 100% total disability and his__eari'iing"eap_yaCity"i_s'aJso reduced completely.
12. "Consideiti_ngvlthe: evidence of PW.1 to 3, we are of the l:opinliei1"on account of the portion of the skull being Injury sustained to the head, the claimant has has llalso come in the evidence that due to removedfof a suiieredV___vI.O(iil'/tad disability and there is 1.oss of 100% memory. ' gs» por!'_ion of the skullyhis brain is exposed and is without any £ _p_r§')tect.ion. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that he is nothing but a living vegetable and has to be under the care and custody of someone for the rest of his life. ex?
MrA.No.1149.2oo6
13. The claimant has proved by producing documents in regard to the nature of his job and income. The claimant was working as an Executive Director in 1VI/ s.Vi~shr1u__'_Forge¢ Industries, Bangalore which is proved by l?"\"9'.4<i _p the Managing Director of the saidzhicompavny. '1 also produced the doeumentgto show his lastgdprawn salaryfip which shows Rs,17,555/-p.mv;i.:"'i.Accordingfro theft claimant was also eligible to 'get an;gincrementvloflils.1000/ -
p.a and he being an also getting perks like fuel expenses etc. He was aged '£'ribunal though admits the has Considered the net salaryas :_fi'o.rqthe.-~purpose of calculation of future loss of earning' wit}-1ou._t considering the future prospectus of c~la;inaaz1i.. W"he*n----ithe claimant was aged about 45 years V anudewasfwvorkingg as an Executive Director in a Well--known are of the opinion that he had future prospectus in his life and therefore, we have to consider if what would be the probable enhancement of his income on account of the post held by him at the age of 45.
14. Relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court I the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Carlie & ef Mf'A.NO.'l!?.'l':9l.'2_UU6 another reported in 2005 ACJ 1 131 and keeping in mind the ratio that where the injured has suffered 100% disability, the logic applicable to fatal accidents can be made applicable in an appropriate cases. Taking note of all relevant have to consider the quantum of compensation ' head of loss of future earning cap.ac_ity. if claimant was getting a salary of Rs';--.l7 aged 45 years on the date of ":tl'1e_ accident, everyrll' possibility of the claimant earri:i'rig_ higherhsalary he had continued in the same_d-3signa€;_ion'I=.0:However, we have to keep in mind vicissitudes l'ife'.--. the absence of any concrete gvldefiée regard' to the future prospects of the claimant; we ':arpé~..cons?;rained to consider salary of Rs.17,555/l"~.p.rn.as_ gross salary. Out of Rs.17,555/~ We .,_Aha~.¢f§'«:.tQpp._gix*e dedluctlerl to the lncome Tax, Professional Tax 'e If "w4e'dVed;uet Professional Tax and income Tax and other iricide1itale'1j1ai'ges, we are of the opinion the net income to 'lg be tal.~;.err:_cannot be less than Rs.15,000/~ p.m. Considering 0' "..ffhisl'a.ge as 515, we have to apply the multiplier of 14 in terms fSarla Vermas Case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. If We 0 nmeonsider theiraeome of him as Rs.15,000/-p.m., the annual loss of income would be Rs.1,80,000/~ and if we apply multiplier 14, the total future loss of earning would be 3%:
M£A.NO.'l£é9.20{)6 Rs.25,20.000/-- taking into consideration the disability "of the claimant as 100%. It is to be observed at this stage, respondent has not disputed 100% disability . claimant; in the accident. Therefore, we."are~--.:incVline*dV to "' consider the loss of future income 5: 'd
15. The Tribunal has gt Rs.f50.000/-
under the head of pain the nature ofmjuries sustained by 1999, we are inclined to '....1.lnder the head pain and suffering; -9. The Tribunal has awarded' the head medical experisels, 9' produced by the claimant before the 9'T1'ibu.na--.l, A'we*"'d0 not see any justification to thxe"co--rn'pensat1on awarded by the Tribunal the'ihead~-.medical expenses. Accordingly, we retain the. aniouritf :O1VC:--::l5v{S.3,00.0OO/ ~. The Tribunal has awarded a sunilcf iF?.s.20,000/-- towards conveyance and nourishment the treatment period. Considering the nature of * tr'eat1nent. as the same is continued, we are inclined to " Harvard a sum of Rs.50.000/~ under the said head. wire':
MEA.NO.Q1é9.2006 __]_O_.
16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-- under the head of future medical expenses. We have see:n»..the evidence of PW.2 8: 3 the doctors who have treated treating the claimant even today. Accordingyto _ petitioner has to undergo a rnajoifhlsurgegyltwhichhi l1.EV1~SV:'b:C{(7§1:l:' estimated at Rs.2,00,000/-- atthe of But it has been argued beforeziis. of risk involved the appellant l§§fs.gna¢fg'c'1n'g" surgery, considering the naturelllofllpsiiraery to his brain. Therefore, wejaregjpniot evidence of the doctor in relg-a_rd."'-to'..__th'e_;--«.g,1irge':fy"'._e};penses to be incurred towarcf.-s future? surgery, V
17. come in the evidence that every mon:i;h,v lithe petitiovner. is required to spend considerable ~an1o_un.i towards the medical expenses as the accident is of lllfliehyear'lu1_Ei99.and considering that he is under constant treatment, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-- as.=a_gain'si'. the award of Rs."/5,000/-- passed by the Tribunal. it The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2:":3,000/- under the "head loss of amenities which according to us is too meager. Considering the background of the claimant and that he was holding a post of Executive Director in a well known 6/ MfA.NO.ii49.2OG6 e 11 --
company and has been confined to the house without enjoying the rest of the life, we are inclined to awardV_:a._'»sum of Rs.i,O0.000/~ under the head loss of amenities' ' _ weil as conjugal life.
18. it has Come in the evidence that the petitioner on his own cannot take care of himselffor the rest his lfife, either his Wife or some attendaiit is him ail the 24 hours in a day. awarded any cornpensation" charges. On this head We l",t)0,000/- towards the futurei'iVatter1d.a.ntall in all the appellant is entitledxVfor«'a - with interest at 6% pa fronithe dateof pet-itiounl realization. L' _ln._the"result the appeal is allowed in part. The total eorn'pensatio_n..e:' of Rs.33,70,000/-- is awarded as against
-- b the Tribunal. Out of the compensation "..:faw;a';ded' in this appeal, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-- which has loeen" awarded under the head future medical expenses and it H"fntu1*e attendant charges shalt not carry interest and for the rest of the amount, the respondent/ insurance company shail is/1 MfA.3.\i0.'Li49.2€){}6 _Ml2+ pay the interest at 6% pa. from the date of the claim petition till deposit.
20. At this stage the appellant's wife who is care it of the appellant is present before theeeurt, --'states'that she is having two daughters who have attained "thexage and she has to celebrate the1r_Vrnarriag.'e,V Itisgals_o'"he1"case'V d that they are studying in colleg.es:A'and.._that 's"he._has§ incurred loan towards the rnecliucaipt.reatihent"oi".iher husband. She . _ '- ,1 3 5'3; %:;w"~% further request the cour't"to:ijelea.s'e_§mri'y.V.Rs'.10,00,000/~ out of the cornperlsatiion.V_ enhanced _by;'this:'c'o'urt, and rest of the an1ount"be"deposited' bank" and pennit her to operate the a<:oount; as unable to operate the same. She i'1_1rther"submits Whenever the marriage of her daughters arc{ril2<edl she inay---------be given permission to withdraw the V appi'oaching this court.
pl Ir": .fl_l.e_ circumstances we direct the Tribunal to release only of Rs.10,00.000/~ only to the wife of the Vppddappellaviit: for immediate necessity and medical expenses. "Rest--7«oi' the amount along with accrued interest shall be ...invested in any Nationalized Bank for an initial period of five years. We grant liberty for the appellant's wife to move this 4.9' MEA.NO.'§,§.49.2006 _:5L3_ court for withdrawal of monies in order to Celebrate the marriage of her children or for their education Q:'V~f'or_tan.y other valid reasons. She is entitled to the' p€l"iOdi.CfE11 interest for the maintenarree of the."a§pEIVl'ar£t.Va11(i""
the family.
. t t=";3Ct'%2*"t""rtt'*et }~'t?D;GE r IUDGE