Supreme Court - Daily Orders
K P Raju vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 2 May, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3310 of 2023
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 2168/2019)
K P RAJU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC DEPOT Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as against the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) and thereafter enhanced by the High Court. In respect of the injuries suffered in the accident by the appellant, which had occurred on 04.05.2015, the MACT through its award dated 07.04.2016, had awarded the sum of Rs.5,66,452/- with interest at 6% per annum. While doing so, the MACT has reckoned the disability at 27% and the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. The High Court, while enhancing the said compensation through its judgment dated 20.03.2018, has reckoned the income at Signature Not Verified Rs.10,000/- per month, the disability at 50% and enhanced Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2023.05.03 17:36:23 IST Reason: the compensation to Rs.11,76,612/- with interest at 6% per annum.
2
3. The issue primarily in the instant appeal is with regard to the disability, as reckoned by the High Court and also with regard to the future prospects relating to the income reckoned. In so far as the future prospects, it is not in doubt that the appellant would be entitled to 25% of the income already taken. On the issue relating to disability, the Doctor was examined as P.W.2 and has stated with regard to the disability to be taken at 80%. The High Court while reckoning the disability at 50%, has indicated that the appellant can take up any other avocation and therefore, limited the disability to 50%.
4. However, in a matter of the present nature, when the doctor has stated with regard to the disability at 80% and the avocation of the appellant/claimant was stated to be a mason, who was engaged in tile laying, amputation of the lower limb would certainly affect the career of the appellant and as such, the disability, as stated by the Doctor (P.W.2) at 80% is required to be accepted. In that view, we deem it appropriate to consider the disability at 80% and re-work the compensation.
5. If that is done, the income, as taken with future prospects, would be in a sum of Rs.12,500/- and if the same is taken on the annual basis and the multiplier of ‘13’ is applied, the amount would be in a sum of Rs.19,50,000/-.
3
6. Since, we have reckoned the disability at 80%, the appellant would be entitled to the sum of Rs.15,60,000/- on the head of loss of earning capacity due to disability. The High Court, on the other heads, has awarded the sum of Rs.4,06,612/-. Hence, the total compensation will work out to Rs.19,66,612/-. The High Court has already awarded a sum of Rs.11,76,612/-. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition before the MACT till the date of payment.
7. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the respondent-Transport corporation before the MACT within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment whereupon, the MACT shall disburse the enhanced compensation to the appellant/claimant.
8. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of along with pending application(s). if any.
...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (HIMA KOHLI) New Delhi 02nd May, 2023 4 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2168/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-03-2018 in MFA No. 487/2017 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) K P RAJU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC DEPOT Respondent(s) Date : 02-05-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.B.Gururaj, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Pramit Chhetri, Adv.
Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S Hegde, Adv.
Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR Mr. Shanti Prakash, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any, in terms of the signed order.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)