Karnataka High Court
Mr S R Ravishankar vs Smt Indu M G on 26 April, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.No.11066/2012 C/W M.F.A.No.11078/2012 (MV)
MFA.No.11066/2012
BETWEEN:
MR S R RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE SRI S.N.RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.80, 1ST MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJAPET
BANGALURU-560018. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADV.)
AND :
SMT INDU M G
W/O RAJESH R, 22 YEARS
# 791 A, 6TH CROSS
BAPUJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560026.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
#646 (39/1275)
MUNDAPATT, 7,
VODOOKARA
THRISSUR-680007. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.10.2012 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4876/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST &
ETC.
2
MFA No.11078/ 2012
BETWEEN :
INDU M G
W/O RAJESH R, 22 YEARS
NO.791/A, 6TH CROSS
BAPUJINAGAR
BANGALORE-26
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO.646, (39/1275)
MUNDAPATT,7,
VADOOKARA
THRISSUR-680007. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRIYUTHS S J KRISHNAJI RAO & R CHANDRASHEKAR,
ADVS.)
AND :
S R RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE SRI. S.N. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.80, 1ST MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-18. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.10.2012 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4876/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE MEMBER MACT COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The matters are listed for admission. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal.
2. MFA 11066/2012 is filed for reduction of compensation by the owner of Road Roller involved in the accident.
3. MFA 11078/2012 is filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Sri.Chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel for appellant would submit that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence as she suddenly came across the Road Roller involved in the accident and her left lower limb was crushed by the Road Roller.
6. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that, Road Roller was driven in reverse direction without any 4 indication; the driver of Road Roller had caused series of accidents; not only the claimant, but also other two persons were injured in the accident. The hind portion of Road Roller dashed against two parked vehicles. The Road Roller came to halt after hitting a road side electric pole.
7. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced by claimant and considering facts and circumstances of case has held that driver of Road Roller was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The owner of Road Roller has not examined the driver to rebut evidence adduced by claimant. Therefore, tribunal has rightly held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Road Roller bearing No.AP-550.
8. As a result of accident, the left lower limb of claimant was crushed. Her left lower limb just below knee level was amputed. The claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. She was a housewife.
9. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,83,000/- under following heads: 5
Pain and agony Rs. 80,000 Medical expenses Rs.2,75,000 Future medical expenses Rs. 75,000 Attendant, food, diet, nourishment, Rs. 50,000 conveyance etc
Loss of earnings and other gains due to the Rs.4,53,000 amputation of left leg below knee Discomfort, Disappointment, fun etc Rs. 50,000 Total Rs.9,83,000
10. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that tribunal should have determined the income of claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned counsel for owner would justify determination of income.
11. The tribunal has determined permanent physical disability vis-à-vis loss of earning capacity at 70%. In terms of Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act, amputation of limb below knee level would result in 50% of loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the deficiency in determination of income is off set by higher percentage of disability determined by the tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that compensation awarded by the tribunal towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life' is inadequate. The claimant 6 has lost her left lower limb below knee level. She has to walk with the help of crutches. The claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. She has to suffer pain, inconvenience and discomfort during the rest of her life. Therefore, compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life'. The compensation awarded under other heads does not call for interference. Thus, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,33,000/-. The tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum without assigning reasons. Therefore, rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA 11066/2012 is dismissed.
ii) MFA 11078/2012 is accepted in part.
iii) The impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.9,83,000/- to Rs.10,33,000/- with interest at 7 the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
iv) The rest of the impugned award as it relates to rate of interest, period of accrual of interest and ratio of payment and investment is confirmed.
v) The amount deposited in MFA 11066/2012 shall be transferred to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-