Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road Transport vs Ramanathan R on 5 December, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1572/2009 (MV)
A/W
MFA CROB.NO.121/2011 (MV)
IN MFA 1572/2009
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMANATHAN.R,
S/O.MR.RAMA IYER,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3/3, 3RD MAIN,
TATA SILK FARM,
BANGALORE 560082. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17/10/2008
PASSED IN MVC NO.3415/2007 ON THE FILE OF VII
ADDL.JUDGE, MEMBER MACT-3, BANGALORE,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,93,200/- WITH
INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA.CROB NO.121/2011
BETWEEN:
RAMANATHAN.R,
S/O.MR. RAMA IYER,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT # 41/A, 15TH MAIN,
1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
BANGALORE. ... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C., K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE- 27. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT: H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.1572/2009 FILED
U/ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.3415/2007 ON THE FILE OF VII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING
3
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA AND MFA CROB IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Respondent/KSRTC and claimant in MVC.No.3415/2007 have come up in this appeal and cross-objection respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that claimant-Ramanathan rider of two wheeler bearing No.KA-02-L-9467 was proceeding on BMTC service road on 13.02.2007 at 06:45 p.m. At that time, it is stated that, he was hit by KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-26-F-586 resulting in fracture of both bones of left arm and haemathrosis of left knee with injury to medial collateral ligament and other injuries.
3. The accident is not in dispute so also injuries suffered by the claimant. It is seen that subsequent to the 4 accident, the claimant was admitted to Bharathi Nursing Home initially and thereafter to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, where he was inpatient for a period of 10 days. During which period, he was provided treatment for union of the fracture of the left arm by conducting surgery, by putting implant. It is seen that subsequently, the claim petition is filed seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the said road traffic accident.
4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined Dr.K.S.Natraj, the doctor who treated him at Bharathi Nursing Home as PW.2 and produced in all 12 documents and got marked the same as Exs.P1 to 12 in support of his claim. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition partially 5 by awarding a compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.1,93,200/- which is apportioned as under:
Sl. Description Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Pain and Sufferings 40,000/-
2 Loss of amenities 50,000/-
3 Loss of income during laid 15,000/-
up period
4 Medical expenses 83,200/-
5 Incidental expenses 5,000/-
TOTAL 1,93,200/-
And the same came to be awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of entire amount. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded both appeal as well as cross-objection are filed.
5. The case of the respondent/KSRTC is that, for the injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded is on higher side and also contended that the interest awarded at 7.5% is excessive and the same should have been 6%, which is followed normally by all the Tribunals and also by this Court.
6
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for cross-objection contends that the compensation awarded towards incidental expenses is on lower side and also that there is failure on the part of the Tribunal in not awarding compensation towards 'future medical expenses' inspite of there being evidence on record to show that the claimant requires Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of implant.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for cross- objection and perused the judgment impugned. On going through the same, it is seen that, the accident is not in dispute, so also the injuries suffered by the claimant. However, when it comes to the compensation awarded, it is seen that, the compensation awarded under all the heads appears to be just and proper, except in not awarding the 'future medical expenses'. Admittedly, the left arm of the claimant is treated by surgical arthroscopy 7 arthrolysis by putting implants. The evidence of PW.2 suggests that, implants are required to be removed by surgery as required. It is contended that, removal of the implantation would cost Rs.20,000/-. Even assuming that the cost for removal of implantation is excessive, atleast Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded towards 'Future Medical Expenses' and the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. In that view of the matter, there is an error on the part of the Tribunal in not awarding the compensation under this head.
8. Now so far as interest portion is concerned, interest awarded at 7.5% is on the higher side. This Court has consistently awarded interest at 6% for the compensation amount. In the light of aforesaid discussions, this Court allow the appeal filed by KSRTC partially in disturbing the interest portion by reducing it from 7.5% to 6%.
8
9. So far as the cross-objections filed by the claimant is concerned, the same is allowed by awarding additional compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards "Future Medical Expenses'. Accordingly, cross-objection is allowed. In view of the cross-objection being allowed, the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of entire amount.
10. In view of the appeal filed by KSRTC being allowed in part, KSRTC shall deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with Rs.15,000/- awarded as additional compensation towards 'future medical expenses' at 6% interest per annum on the total compensation i.e, 2,08,200/- from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount.
11. The appeal and cross-objection are disposed of on above terms, the amount in deposit in this Court is 9 ordered to be sent to MACT for disbursement to the claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE KSR