Bangalore District Court
Ananda vs Ksrtc on 4 June, 2024
KABC020105572020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 4th day of June, 2024.
M.V.C. NO. 1962 OF 2020
Petitioner/s
Master Ananda
S/o K.B Suresh
Aged about 13 years,
Since petitioner Minor rep by
Natural Guardian mother
Smt.Neela,
W/o K B Suresh,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Konasur Village at Post,
Periyapattna Taluk,
Mysore District.
By Sri.CC.Harish & Suma, Advocates)
Vs
SCCH-24 2 MVC 1962/2020
Respondent:
The Managing Director,
KSRTC,
K.H road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore.
(RC owner of bus bearing Reg.
KA09F4829)
(By Sri.M.R.Basavaraju, Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act through his natural guardian, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident dated 18022020.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 18 022020 at about 9.30 a.m., the minor petitioner was proceeding in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA09F4819 as a passenger, the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations. When bus reached near Elemuddanahalli village, K.R Nagar Taluk, the petitioner was getting down from the bus carefully but it is prior to the petitioner got down from the bus, the driver of the bus moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the SCCH-24 3 MVC 1962/2020 petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, K.R Nagar, wherein first aid treatment was given and then shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and from there to Brindavan Hospital, Mysore wherein taken treatment as an inpatient from 18.02.2020 to 04.03.2020. The petitioner is still under follow up treatment. So far the mother of petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. Petitioner was aged about 13 years. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, he was brilliant student, due to permanent disability he has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability, getting giddiness he cannot concentrate of education and activities and other pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
3. The Respondent the RC owner of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA09F4829 has filed written statement and denied the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.KA09F4829. It is contended that petitioner who is physically challenged boy has got down from the bus with his heavy school bag in hurried manner and slipped down from the bus and exposed himself to the alleged accident. It is contended that petitioner himself is responsible for the accident but not the driver of the bus. The petitioner has lodged false complaint against KSRTC bus with an illegal object to claim unlawful compensation.
SCCH-24 4 MVC 1962/20204. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he met with a motor vehicle accident on 18.02.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., near Elemuddanahalli village, K.R.Nagar Taluk, Mysore District and sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing reg.No.KA09F4819?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, has examined his natural guardian/mother Smt.Neela as PW.1 and three witnesses as P.W.2 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and closed the evidence on petitioner's side. The respondent has examined its driver as Rw.1 and got marked order sheet and documents in CC No.658/2021 and one witness examined as Rw.2 and got marked documents as per Ex.R2 and R3.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 1962/20206. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 : In order to explain the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, P.W.1 the mother of minor petitioner has filed her affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 18022020 at about 9.30 a.m. when the minor petitioner was proceeding in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA09F4819 as a passenger and the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations. The bus when reached near Elemuddanahalli village, K.R Nagar Taluk and when petitioner was getting down from the bus carefully, at that time, the driver of the bus rashly and negligently moved the bus prior to the petitioner got down from the bus, result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the SCCH-24 6 MVC 1962/2020 nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
9. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving , examined his guardian i.e., his mother Smt.Neela as PW.1, and relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 and 12 which are the police records such as F.I.R., FIS, spot mahazar, spot sketch, vehicle seizure mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate, charge sheet, ect.,
10. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Thirthaprabhu M T, case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No 0049/2020 of Salligram Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of MV Act. The Investigation officer after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC.
11. In order to prove that accident in question has taken place not in the manner stated by the petitioner but in the manner stated in the written statement , the driver of the offending vehicle has been examined as Rw1 and got marked order sheet and documents in CC No.658/2021 as per Ex.R1.
SCCH-24 7 MVC 1962/202012. The learned counsel for respondent has vehemently argued that petitioner was handicapped by birth and due to his physical disability and negligent act he fell down from the bus and that the left lower limb of petitioner was amputed not because of the injuries sustained in the accident but because of disability he had in the left lower limb from his birth. To substantiate the aforesaid argument, the respondent has mainly relied upon the averments of complaint.
13. If the complaint is perused, it is lodged by the Head Master, Government Higher Primary school, Elamudhanahalli, K.R Nagar, Mysore District. In Ex.P2 it is stated that at the time of accident the petitioner was studying in 6th standard and that petitioner is physically disabled boy. The respondent has examined the complainant as RW.2. The RW.2 has produced the admission register and transfer certificate of petitioner. The RW.2 deposed that at the time of accident petitioner was studying in their school in 6 th standard, that after the accident the petitioner continued his studies in the said school till the 7th standard and that after the 7 th standard he left their school as there is no further education in their school. The Rw2 feigned ignorance whether after 7 th standard petitioner has continued his studies in any other SCCH-24 8 MVC 1962/2020 school or not. The RW.2 while admitting that in the complaint he had stated that petitioner is handicapped but further deposed that petitioner has speech disability but not any physical disability on his lower limbs or upper limbs. It is further deposed by RW.2 that petitioner used to attend the school independently and he used to go to school by traveling in a public bus and that it is because petitioner has some speech problem, in the complaint he has stated that petitioner is physically disabled .
14. If Ex.R1 i.e., deposition of witnesses given in CC No.658/2021 is perused, wherein the complainant was examined as PW.1. During the cross examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for accused has posed suggestion to the effect that "victim is handicapped student", the PW.1 admitted the said fact and deposed that the IQ level of the victim is not equal to that of the other students. It is admitted by PW.1 that there was no separate facilities arranged from school authorities for the conveyance of victim to the school and that the petitioner used to come to the school along with other students in a public transport and that his parents were not accompanying the victim to the school. The bus pass issued from KSRTC bus as per Ex.P8 discloses that petitioner used to travel to the school regularly in the SCCH-24 9 MVC 1962/2020 offending bus. If really petitioner was physically handicapped having problem in leg and unable to stand properly without support then definitely the parents of petitioner would not have send their son alone in the public transport without accompanying him to the school. When the author of Ex.P2 himself on Oath has stated that petitioner is not handicapped but only had speech problem and even PW.3 who had assessed the physical disability of the petitioner has stated that on examination of petitioner he has not noticed that petitioner has physical disability prior to his accident and further that the left leg above knee was amputed not because of the alleged earlier disability in the left leg but because of the accidental injuries sustained by him, under such circumstances there is no reason to accept the version of the respondent in saying that petitioner is by birth handicapped and because of his physical disability he slip down from the bus and sustained injuries.
15. When admittedly petitioner being minor was traveling in the offending vehicle and when admittedly accident in question has occurred while petitioner was alighting from the bus, under such circumstances the driver and conductor ought to have taken all precautionary measures in seeing whether all the children SCCH-24 10 MVC 1962/2020 are got down from the bus and it is after confirming that the passengers have got down from the bus then only they have to move the bus. Hence considering the materials placed on record, it can be said that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle alone is the sole cause for accident. Hence Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue no 2 : The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of her son/minor petitioner sustaining grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents which are at Ex.P.7/wound certificate and also examined Record Technician in MRD Section at Brindavana Hospital at Mysore as PW.2 and produced discharge summary, inpatient case sheet, MLC register and xray films at Ex.P.17 to 20. On going through the medical documents it reveal that petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient at Brindavan Hospital Bangalore from 18022020 to 04032020 for a period of 15 days. As per wound certificate the petitioner has sustained degloving injury of left leg, which is grievous in nature. Ex.P.13 is the Photographs pertaining to the injury sustained by the petitioner and amputation of left knee.
SCCH-24 11 MVC 1962/202017. Dr.S.A Somashekara, Orthopedic surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore is examined as PW.4 and through him examination report and xray films are got marked as Ex.P.23 and Ex.P 24. P.W.4 has deposed that he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically for assessment of disabilities. Pw.4 further deposed that petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 60% on whole body and that petitioner needs sophisticated above knee prosthesis the cost of which runs in to lakhs.
18. Hence, considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent at this juncture has referred judgment reported in Civil Appeal No 7139 of 2013 Between Master Mallikarjun/ Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited and Another where in it was observed that "though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the cases of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High courts, we are of the view that the SCCH-24 12 MVC 1962/2020 appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc should be if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body Rs 3,00,000, up to 60% Rs 4 lakhs, Up to 90% Rs 5 lakhs and above 90% it should be Rs 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10% it should be Rs 1 lakhs unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardsticks.
20. The learned counsel for respondent by referring the aforesaid judgment has vehemently submitted that the petitioner being minor stated to have suffered 60% disability the appropriate compensation he is entitled to is Rs 4 lakh, in additional to that he is entitled for actual medical expenses incurred by him and the attendant charges but not more than that.
21. In the cases referred in the aforesaid judgment though the victims have suffered disability but in none of the case there is any reference about amputation of any of the limb of the victim. But in the present case the left leg above knee was amputed. Under these exceptional circumstances so also considering the observation made in the rulings relied by the counsel for petitioner referred here below this court finds it just to take different yardstick.
SCCH-24 13 MVC 1962/202022. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained grievous injury. In a judgment rendered by the hon'ble High court in MFA No 1914/2017 between Saleem Whammed and Ors/ The National Insurance Company Ltd and Others where minor aged 7 years sustained injury in a road traffic accident and her left leg was amputed below the knee and artificial limb was fixed. In the given set of facts the hon'ble High court has awarded compensation under the head pain and suffering to the tune of Rs 2,00,000/ .
23. In the present case, as per the school admission record at Ex.P9 the date of birth of petitioner is 2805 2009 but in the Aadhar card at Ex.P14 the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned 28052007. The accident in question has occurred on 18022020. When there are school records, the court has to rely upon the school records to know the age of the petitioner. If the age mentioned in Ex.P9 is considered then as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged about 11 years.
24. The petitioner who was aged about 11 years sustained grievous injury and his left side above knee was amputed. Hence taking in to consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and time taken for SCCH-24 14 MVC 1962/2020 treatment and sufferings during the treatment it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards pain and suffering.
25. So far as medical expenses incurred by the petitioner are concerned, he has produced prescriptions and medical bills for Rs.2,38,269/ as per Ex.P.11 and 12. As such the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,38,269/ under the head medical expenses.
26. PW.1 has given evidence to the effect that her son/minor petitioner who was aged about 11 years at the time of accident was student and was very active in day today activities. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident petitioner was studying in 6th standard. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted to assess the monthly income of the petitioner on par with the minimum wages of unskilled labour during the year 2020 fixed by the Government notification. The learned counsel to substantiate their argument has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 585 between G. Vivek Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors., In the said case, injured was minor aged about 12 years studying in 8th standard. The mishap occurred on 2405 2011 while he was traveling in the bus. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident right leg of the injured SCCH-24 15 MVC 1962/2020 was amputed. He has suffered 97% permanent disability in relation to the right lower limb, left lower limb and post traumatic amputation. In the said case the court has applied multiplier of 15 to calculate the loss of income, taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/ per month and added 50% towards future prospects and award compensation under the head loss of future income, it has awarded sum of Rs.26,00,000/ towards cost of new prosthesis and for its maintenance.
27. In (2020) 4 ACC 413 between Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., In the said case, injured was aged about 12 years attending school met with an accident, she suffered serious injuries resulting in brain damage left with very low IQ and severe weakness in all four limbs. There was disability 100%. In the said case, the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court had taken notional income of petitioner at Rs.15,000/ per annum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not proper way of assessing future loss of income. It is further held that "the young girl after studies could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/ per annum. Each case has to decide on its own evidence, but minimum wages payable to a skilled work man can be considered as the income of the SCCH-24 16 MVC 1962/2020 petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has added 40% future prospect and applied multiplier 18.
28. In MFA No.25028/2010 (MVI) between Miss.Priyanka Pradeep Gavade Vs. The Divisional Manager, The New India assurance Co.Ltd. In the said case, the petitioner was aged about 7 years met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. She was in the hospital for a period of two months. As she was aged about 7 years it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that full time attendance presence would have been necessary to take care of the petitioner in the hospital. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court has awarded sum of Rs.25, 000/ under the head conveyance charges and attendant charges. As claimant was a female child considering the deformity suffered by her, the disability and disfigurement suffered by her which effects her marriage prospects adversely, sum of Rs.3,00,000/ awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. In the said case, the claimant has suffered 50% permanent physical disability in relation to whole body at 50%. By referring the observation made in Kajal case referred above the Hon'ble High Court has awarded sum of Rs.14,66,000/ towards loss of earning capacity.
SCCH-24 17 MVC 1962/202029. Coming to the case in hand, at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 11 years. As per the evidence of PW.4 who is non treated doctor the petitioner has disability of 60% on whole body. If medical records are perused, the left above knee amputation was done. The accident in question has occurred in the year 2020. During the year 2020 the minimum wages of unskilled labour was Rs. 401. Further as observed by the hon'le Apex court in Divya / The National Insurance reported in Civil Appeal no 7605 of 2022 "where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years the multiplier should b 15. The Hon'ble Supreme court held that the selection of multiplier 15 for the age group up to 15 years by the three judge Bench in Reshma Kumaris case is having a sound basis. It is common knowledge that the age group of 21 to 25 years is regarded as the commencement of normal productive years as referred specifically by the two judge bench in Sarala Verma's case at paragraph 39. True that in Sarala Vera case the same multiplier viz 18 is selected for the age group 15 to 20 years. In this context it is relevant to refer to the child and adolescent labour ( Prohibition and Regularities ) Act 1986 which is an enactment to prohibit the engagement of children in all occupation and to prohibit the engagement of adolescence in hazardous occupations and process and SCCH-24 18 MVC 1962/2020 matters connected there with and incidental there to. Furthermore when there is clear prohibition under an enactment for engagement of children and the definition of Child under the said enactment takes in children who have not completed their fourteenth year of age within its fold , there is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of 15 in the case of victims belonging to the age group up to 15 years is applied and 40% future prospect is added.
30. From the evidence of Pw1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment for several times. Further he has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 15 days.
31. The learned counsel for petitioner by referring Kajal's case (supra) has submitted that when petitioner was in the hospital his parents were attending the petitioner by leaving their work, hence, court has to award compensation towards attendants charges of at least two attendants and to adopt multiplier system even for attendance charges.
32. In Kajal case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.21,60,000/ towards attendant charges by applying multiplier 18 on the SCCH-24 19 MVC 1962/2020 attendance charges fixed based on the wages of skilled labour by state of Hariyana as per the notification of the year 2010.
33. It is relevant to state here that in the aforesaid case, the petitioner a female child has suffered 100% disability resulting in brain damage, she is bedridden and bedridden for whole of her life. Under such circumstances the hon'ble supreme court considering the requirement of minimum two attendance through out of the life of petitioner to take care of her because of her incapacity to do any work on her own throughout her life as her brain is not working has awarded compensation under the head attendance charges on higher side.
34. But in the present case, the petitioner stated to have suffered permanent disability of 60% and the said disability is assessed by non treated doctor. Hence, this court instead of taking 60% would incline to take 45% as permanent disability by considering the physical condition of the petitioner and his improvement in the activities subsequent to the accident. Even if 45% disability is considered, as per the evidence of PW3 if above knee prosthesis with Pneumatic knee joint with Elite foot with breeze foot with suction socket is fixed, he can do all normal basic activities. In Kajal case minor child was SCCH-24 20 MVC 1962/2020 completely reduced to vegetable stage but the present claimant is not in such physical debilitated condition so as to engage two attendance for the life time of petitioner so as to award compensation under the head attendance charges for two attendant by applying multiplier 18 and by taking the income of the attendant as per the minimum wages skilled labour fixed by the state. As per the evidence of Rw2 even after the accident the petitioner has continued his studies as he completed 7th standard in the very same school. Hence, the disability suffered by the petitioner in the present case and in the Kajols case is not similar. Hence this court inclines to award compensation under the head attendance charges, conveyance and other incidental expenses only to the tune of Rs.50,000/.
35. P.W.3 has deposed that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability on left side above knee amputation at loss lower level stump measures around 30 cm and has 45% disability on whole body.
36. So taking in to consideration the monthly income of the petitioner having considered by this tribunal as Rs.401/ per day and Rs.12,030/ p.m when above knee (left) was amputed and disability is assessed at 45%, by referring the observation made in the aforesaid rulings SCCH-24 21 MVC 1962/2020 if 40% is added towards future prospects it comes to Rs.16,842/. When the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 11 years, as per the observation made in Divya's case referred above '15' is the multiplier. Hence the loss of future income due to disability comes to Rs.16,842/x 45% x 15 x 12 =13,64,202/. Hence this Tribunal holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.13,64,202/ towards future loss of income due to disability including future prospect.
37. So far as cost of artificial limb is concerned, the petitioner has examined Dr.J.Immanuelsenior prosthetics and orthotics and Director of Jhon's prosthetic and orthotic center as PW.3, through him quotation report and recent checkup bill were got marked as Ex.P.21 and 22. PW.3 has deposed that he examined the petitioner on 10 102023 for above knee prosthesis, that after examining his stump he found that muscle power of his stump is weak and he cannot be fitted with silicon socket but he can be fitted with prosthesis with suction socket. Hence considering his stump length condition and muscle power, given quotation to the petitioner in connection with fixing of pneumatic knee prosthetic systems with endolite light weight components.
SCCH-24 22 MVC 1962/202038. Pw.3 further deposed that total cost of the fitment of the economical above knee prosthesis with Pneumatic knee joint with elite foot and breeze foot with suction socket the cost of which will be around Rs.2,85,200/, that the above said prosthesis can be used up to 35 years without any problem depends upon the maintenance, the socket of the prosthesis need to be changed if there is any variation in the stump i.e., size and volume.
39. PW.3 further deposed that the maintenance charges for above knee prosthesis including socket, firing and cover fabric per annual will cost around Rs.40,000/.
40. PW.3 further deposed that the petitioner will be having his physical growth up to 20 years and the prosthesis need to be changed once the patient reaches the age 20 the standard above knee prosthesis will cost around Rs.6,50,000/.
41. So far as cost of artificial limb and its maintenance is concerned it is vehemently submitted that as per the evidence of Pw3 the standard above knee prosthesis will cost around Rs.6,50,000/. and there will be recurring expenses of approximately Rs.40,000 p.a for SCCH-24 23 MVC 1962/2020 possible retirement of socket change due to unpredicted physiological changes in her body and other maintenance of the prosthesis like change of consumables like cosmetic glove and electrodes etc, this cost is based on current price of components and may change in future depending upon prices applicable at that time and she will have to visit multiple times in a year for the same. It is further submitted that petitioner has to change the whole prosthesis once in 5 years due to normal wear and tear of components and to avail benefits of latest technology . The cost of new prosthesis may increase in future due to increase in the prices of raw material, manufacturing and transport cost. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now aged only 11 years and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more and it is proper that he must be compensated so that he is able to purchase ten prosthetic limbs in his life time and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age.
42. If the evidence of PW.3 is perused, the petitioner has purchased Jaipur artificial limb. As admitted by PW.3 the cost of Jaipur artificial limb would be nearly Rs.25,000/ and in some places it will be provided free of cost. It is denied by PW.3 that the petitioner can use Jaipur artificial limb throughout his life and that since SCCH-24 24 MVC 1962/2020 petitioner is child of young age the weakness in the stump may strengthen in future days. It is deposed by PW.3 that the petitioner cannot use silicon socket for the reason that to apply silicon socket it requires gap of two inches but there is no two inch gap in the stump of the petitioner. It is clearly deposed by PW.3 that because of the financial crisis the petitioner at present has used Jaipur artificial leg. It is further deposed by PW.3 that the weight of Jaipur artificial limb is very heavy hence one cannot freely move with Jaipur artificial limb.'
43. Even PW.4 has deposed that the petitioner requires sophisticated above knee prosthesis the cost of which runs into lakhs.
44. If the evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 is perused, the petitioner has already purchased Jaipur artificial limb but according to the PW.3 it is not use full and petitioner has to purchase sophisticated above knee prosthesis.
45. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture has referred judgment in Mohd. Sabeer / Regional Manager UP State Road Transport Corporation where in the hon'ble supreme court has awarded sum of Rs 7,80,000/ for purchase of three prosthetic limb in his life time and for maintenance of the same he was awarded SCCH-24 25 MVC 1962/2020 an additional compensation of Rs 5,00,000/. In the said case the injured was aged about 37 years but in the present case the petitioner at the time of accident was aged about 11 years and now he is aged about 15 years.
46. The Pw.3 at one breath at para no.3 has stated that the cost of the fitment of the economical above knee prosthesis with Peneumatic knee joint with Elite foot with breeze foot with suction socket will be around Rs.2,85,200/ and at another breath in para no.7 has stated that the standard above knee prosthesis will cost around Rs.6,50,000/.
47. It is true that as the year rolls on the cost of prosthesis may definitely raise. Hence keeping in mind the observation made in the aforesaid rulings wherein injured was compensated to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his life time and awarded compensation of Rs.7,80,000/ for purchase of three prosthetic, it is just to award compensation of Rs.21,00,000/ for purchase of 7 prosthetic limbs in the life time of petitioner at a cost of Rs.3,00,000/ and awards compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ for maintenance of the same.
48. The petitioner at his age of 11 years has lost his above knee (left), for that artificial limb was fixed. Hence SCCH-24 26 MVC 1962/2020 considering the pathetic condition of the petitioner it is just to award compensation under the head loss of amenities and discomfort to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ and sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards loss due to disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as under:
Sl.N Heads Amount Rs.
o.
1. Towards pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/
2. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs. 50,000/
charges and nourishing food
3. Future Loss of Income and future Rs.13,64,202/ prospect
4. Medical expenses Rs. 2,38,269/
5. Cost of artificial limb and its Rs.26,00,000/ maintenance
6. Loss of amenities and discomfort Rs. 2,00,000/
7. Loss due to disfigurement and Rs. 2,00,000/ marriage prospect Total Total Rs.48,52,471/ Therefore, this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.48,52,471/ (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Seventy One).
49. As regarding liability is concerned, the Respondent being the RC owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent this court directs the SCCH-24 27 MVC 1962/2020 respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount. Accordingly Issue No. 3 is answered.
50. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.48,52,471/ + cost of Rs.500/ imposed vide order date 11/01/2024. The petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.48,52,971/ (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy One only).
A Sum of Rs.48,52,471/ with interest at 6% p.a. on from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent is liable to pay the compensation and is directed to deposit the SCCH-24 28 MVC 1962/2020 compensation along with interest within 2 months from the date of award.
The entire compensation amount and interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of the minor Petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority with liberty to withdraw periodical interest for the welfare of the minor petitioner.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 4th day of June 2024.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner: Pw1 Smt.Neela PW2 Mr.Jagadeesh M Pw.3 Dr.J.Immanuel PW.4 Dr.S.A Somashekara SCCH-24 29 MVC 1962/2020 List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner: Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P2 : True copy of Complaint Ex.P3 : True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P4 : True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 : True copy of vehicle seizure mahazar Ex.P6 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P7 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P8 : Student bus pass of the minor petitioner Ex.P9 : Admission certificate of the minor petitioner Ex.P10 : Medical prescriptions (40 in nos) Ex.P11 : 60 medical bills amounting to Rs.2,38,269/ Ex.P12 : True copy of charge sheet Ex.P13 : Two photos with CD Ex.P14 : Notarized copies of Adhar cards of petitioner and guardian of petitioner (compared with originals and same are returned) Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of Ration card of family of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P16 : Authorization letter Ex.P17 : Discharge summary Ex.P18 : Inpatient case sheet Ex.P19 : MLC register Ex.P20 : Xray films Ex.P21 : Quotation report Ex.P.22 : Recent checkup bill SCCH-24 30 MVC 1962/2020 Ex.P23 : Recent examination report Ex.P24 : Recent Xrays film no.1 List of witness examined on behalf of respondents: RW.1 : Thimmaiah B RW.2 : Thirthaprabhu M T List of documents marked on behalf of respondents: Ex.R1 : CC of order sheet and documents in CC No.658/2021 Ex.R2 : NC of Admission register (compared with original and same is returned to the party) Ex.R3 : NC of Transfer certificate.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.