Karnataka High Court
Mary Vijaya vs The Manager Head Transport on 11 February, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11?" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20.mf:'j<«.._:'-V--,,A BEFORE A A A A THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.V,EP3i_3(3OFfALA" M.F.A NO.13253 Q5 2,r;§§* A QLV! M.F.A No.13~:>;54_oF iV|.F.A 'NO.13253 OF 2006.. BETWEEN: Mary Vijaya, S[0.::i:5va_iaéz;u_'|'1",":' A Aged 46 years; ' _ _ R/a. No.73,,-D.C_«.._LaVyQ;gt, Opp. Te_!Ug,lJ_A'Ba_Vbt%§i}_ChUjfChV, " Ramacizandrap!;;_ra_;'r;i,,V , Ja|aha|Ei~.,P0'--st, A A Banga!or'e;-13.' " (By xS_§r§ ." S.hripVae":i ..\[fS'haetr§, Adv.) 'ANp".% A OThe-"jV!anaf'qeV_r,fE1'e'ad Transport, M/3. 'ISRO.'Seate'!|ite Centre, _ Airpb-rt RfOad,"Vimanapura, '._,|3angat~ore;. - 17. A B.Prarnod, CGSC) 2006 (MW ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT
MFA No.13253/2006 is flied under Section 173(1) of O Act against the Judgment and award dated:20.07.2006 QUDQMENT Appeilant in MFA 13253/2006 was the petitioner in MVC 3474/zoos. Appeilant in MFA 13254/2ooe_ti{are7t;'t.tie..V petitioner in MVC 3476/2005. Both the pe'c«i:ti0ris.Vt:$\ter'e_'s_ji A' under s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles:Act,"*19t8S, (\iti4ie'.i:~.e:t'*iir:or"~V¢ short). Both the claim petitions ha\}e__ aliotzired. in Dissatisfied with the quantuVn*i._Jof> avxrardt,' -tAh_'ese3ua'p'pea|s it have been preferred.
2. it-ieard_Sri Sh.ri._oad vtishastriiV\ii«'.IStiastri, learned counsel appearin;t;"_Vfovr'--'ap'pe||an.ts""a'nd Sri B.Pramod, iearnedgcotinsiei-appearing"forrespondent and perused the record.
The A'V"'ir'r.---p-etgned awards have not been :b"p:::"i*e.spondent either by way of independent appealés ot'v'v'.';1y.'i1'way of cross objection. Hence, the oniy 'appoint forconsideration is:
Vt"-Whether the amount awarded is Jizst compensation? k / 3/ .
4. Learned counsel for appellants contendedthat, the Tribunal is not justified in the matter of assessme:n't_l'of loss and the compensation determined and aw.a'r'ded:,"i.s' ' a tower side and hence enhancement».i.scaiiedfor} O'n.4_'_t»he-_ V' other hand, learned counsel for re'spo:n'devntllwc_5u.ld that the Tribunat has taken'li_nvt~o_consideration oral and documentary evidence and has awarded just compensation.and?-.'rio4z"i--n'terference is called for. Learned cou'ns__ei madesupport of the findings and Tribunal in the ,- ., °Ap'uellafit:Vin,4,4v_.lf/lift};413253/2006 has deposed es ::»w.1. shetias statedtiet she sustained injuries to her "V._righ._'§_'5?!.eg_,AV' ieft kn'ee,.....a«i'ik3e and other parts of the body.
certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Teachitngv and it shows that, PW.1 had sustained a '.,_punctured«:_v\}ound of 2 x 1 cm. Over distal 1/3*" of ieft thigh it '~~:lth:rolugh which bone fragment protruding out. >(--ray shows supra condytar fracture of right femur, swelling over left lt / knee joint and tenderness over right ankle. X-«ray shows fracture of lateral maileolus. Doctor has opined,-that, injuries No.1 and 3 are grievous in nature,":V:'V"#§,fterl.V treatment, she was discharged from the M discharge summary is at Ex.P6. She"
as an inpatient for about 21 days 21.4.2005. It was diagnosed..,,,,',,t.\'%'.pe If openVj'(co"mupouVnd) supra condylar fracture' i°emur,é'ir'i'ght'V§ lateral malieolus of ankle fracture, non concussiv'g,.}j:Vead and CLW of elbow and licll: itundergone surgery with wound "with supracondylar intra molecular "nail for left »'fernur was inserted on 4.4.2005. PW.3;;'Orthopae'd'i».csurgeon has stated that, he treated the injured and% suhehad 42.5% permanent disability. "-6. ' has incurred medical expenses as well as 'VVincidentaidcharges. Medical expenses are borne out from ".jt.hle'li'~:ecord. Rs.13,962/-- was spent towards medical C'-'expenses. However, there is admis on in her cross» /' examination that, the said amount was reimbursed byher husband's employer.
7. She was a taiior and ciaims _to,v_"ia..avejfbeen"
earning Rs.4,000/-- p.m. which was materiai. She was aged 48 years.'v..(j'onside,ri--ng',.the evidence, her income was taken'a:t»Rs.3,OOVOfHhVp.rn.,, which cannot be said to be Convsiidering the evidence of PWs.1 awarded compensation V» i
8. materiai on record, in my view, compensation as foiiowsz A i A' i it
1.Pain and'su,ffering.-._""1 Rs. 40,000/- 2;" fravci dentai iexpe nses towa rds '~<_:onveyance,.,a«ttendant charges and n"ooris.h'edvVdiet»v: " Rs. 20,000/-
Loss'oyf"earnéi.nv'§§i_daring laid up period: Rs. 21,000/- . .3 Loss of4"aajn'enities of life: Rs. 20,000/- .,"i.;o.ss. of future earning capacity:
U5 * .__(RS.3,0Q.0x12x13x28%) Rs.1,31,040/- it V3'T.oVtai: Rs.2,32,040/-
kg?
9 r'
9. Appellant in MFA 13254/2006 has deposed*.,as PW.2. Doctor who treated him has deposed..~«~as_,'V§l{'t';j'3."
PW.2 has sustained injuries to his shaft of_l_evtt-...h'u.Ame4rbs,' fracture of clavicle, neck of left sca.pula:,' 'fra"c_tuir'e and 4"' metatarsal bone of left_hand'-«arid otherinju'riesali!'V"~w, over the body. Ex.P5(2) is th'ei'a:.\:V;T\i'oiind certiyfic-late'; llfilloctor has opined that, all thei'~~i.njuriiesV_ nature. He has taken treatment:_v'-in'iVi_.'V.§,f.vRz=tm'aA§'ah_'fiftvlospital from 30.3.2005 to 'he::'l"und.el5w0ent surgery on 30.3.2005 i"-at fita.§§ttir«e afi'jsH'avtt,.satiipstiiA metatarsal and left humerus. 0' "Hg",1,,ya:'f,4'Vtre'at.ed conservatively in respect of clavicleand«scapula'r~fr'a'ctu»re.; PW.3 has opined that there is permanent disability. tdthe upper limb and also to the b.,o..dyv.z Hoyvevek, injuries/permanent disability has loss to appellant, inasmuch as, he being in '3_eVrvicV.e,.'lh-isfemoluments have not been dropped down *..and contii-uues to be the same. In the circumstances, the "«0.jAu.s_tcompensation to which the appellant% entitled is:
/' interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim pe.tition tiii the date of deposit.
Respondent is directed to deposit_.t.h'e'*~».e'n»A.Eiance'd"
amount in the Tribunal within a pe;fiodof'.}3 =ig,jiEoGE Ksj/d ._