Karnataka High Court
Allabakshi vs Suresh B Barigidada on 29 February, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
.................. .. . . .. . "x 3. The Divisional Controiier, NEKRTC, Koppaia Division, Koppaia. Aii the appeiiants are represented by Chief Law Officer, NEKRTC, Central Office, Guibarga. (By Sri i<.s. Bharath Kumar, AND: 1. SriAiiabai<shi V _ Son of Raham§zt"f;:_._iiia,;i" _ _ Aged about Agricuituri-3'i,"' » R/0. Neeiagud '53 viiVia'94Q=.ii"- Harap.a~n--ah_éii~!ii Suresh B'. 'Barigidaedian Son of'B_heemap_pe.;'. ' Aged about 27 years, " Driver of KSRTC; bus'-bearing Reg,' Nd.KA--37>~F.<1__62v i AR/oi. B'hajé'ntri om, V.»Kcuja~!,agi "~Jii'i'age (:Ioka:<..T§l'i;--!<i'5*~_..~' ..RESPC}NDENTS ' '(By Sri iriixahesh, Adv. for R1) " ' _ This MFA is fiied under 3.173(1) of W Act; against _ the Sudigment and Award dated 19.5.2011 passed in MVC ..__"No..?.37/2009 on the fiie of the Senior Civii Judge, MACT, '.._4'H'arapanahaiii, awarding a cempensatiori of %'2,41,400[~ A' with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit. These appeals coming on for V Court delivered the following: Jupemefil _ ; Sri D.P.Mahesh ,a.cceptVs--~~- .rigo.tiC£3_ on" 'behalf of respondent 1 in MFA No.8H2«il'8/2t)_1V§'tV..v __
Petitioner in MVC No.23?/200:9 o'r1.1tiiefi--l-e of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) ""Ha'i'appariaha|li, has filed MFA ' "enhancement of cVompensvation"_a. 4 in the said claim petition nave-filedtgikinfiggx._'No_.':32:4--8/2o11 contending that the award pa_Ssed"on_:'19,E7>.2OliVi'°ll3y the MACT is excessive. _vi;'o.r%.tvhie_sake of convenience, parties would be re"i'*er'i?'ed EU:'i7i¥.iVt?l*i'Tl;€flé€I'€'nC€ to their rank in the claim petition filed b"efote'the AMACT.
In a road traffic accident on 9.8.2008, petitioner ____""susi:ained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving ""iwoi'flthe KSRTC bus bearing registration o. KA--37/gF--162 by i\ /.x
-V' its driver. After taking treatment, finding toss, he claim petition under 5.166 of the Motor . against the driver and owner of the_0.ffehdin.g'''n1i§;:v '4 compensation of ?'12,00,000/~ with iEnteic;esi§fi; the bus/respondent 1 having not'<-appear.ed,.cVwas""'oIia.eed parte. Management of KSRTC/olwcner of th'e._l:5us,7;contested the ciaim. Based on the./i.PIea'd'ih§lt%",j¢gissgies in/e"i*e"'Vraised. The claimant deposed was examined as For the respondents,Sfhej--dbri'v'e;j.':oi..jt-hie.Qviifending bus has deposed as rivai contentions and after held that the accident occurred on""a.<;count~__oi'._ra«sh and negligent driving of the :1 ..--vw.i§SRTCigbti's._by'"itc...__..driver, resulting in the claimant "'--su~sta'inVl»n€}_i"ilhjfiries/loss which it has quantified at °<';H,'«i:]ét;4'Oti/>--Vu7andc:=.directed the respondents to pay the said A' -'sum tQ1Eth':"lhté't.est at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the tillthe date of deposit. Dissatisfied with the sum
1.'_'Aaii¢arded, petitioner has fiied MFA i~ie.825e/2011 and the it '.:'.4:'tr':a'nagement of KSRTC has fiied MFA No.8248/2011. t (g
4. Sri D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel, the that the ciaimant being 22 years of age as _A V' of accident, sustained grievous of foot with ioss of exterior tenderness ainclskin oyer,:'hi~s which made him to incur huge efitperiditure"'fo"r"re:bta'i3:iing of treatment, undergo painiand s:'ui'Ht:eAr'i:ngat-..tearnedWcounsel submitted that there disability suffered which r,;a's.'«A;a:,lso resulted disability, in that, the agriculture work, there is yalbartlléfrom the amenities of life. that the Tribunal has not assessedthe loss arnd a "paltry sum has been awarded. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel, on the that, there is excess award in favour 'of the': r;flaVima"nt by the MACT. Learned counsel submits Eohysical disability suffered wouicl not result in '--«l.i'un>;:tioAnal disability and hence there is excess award by l MAC!" and sought modification by way at reduction, Kt /,
6. Occurrence of the accident, respondent 1 in driving the offending_bus, grievous injury bv the ciaimant as result: oi'-.i_;0iaci- 't'r'2iffiAC"iA::d_n_'A accident caused by respondentLand" l»iab~il»i't'g(j'Vpz}y VA just and reasonable compensation4_l:i'n..:fav_Qurl'd;?.the claimant by the respondents, as ha4s.7bee'n MACT is not under challenge.
7. The =i'c)4ni'_y"'VgV3"c')"l'r°'.vi:»-,fi3-ts'j*--cijinsiglécaizion is, whether the Tribunal :'"h'a's'=s..@*orre.?:tiy»""~a'ss_ess_éci'by the loss and the compensa'tiloh..awafded.by and reasonable? ¢8_§.'"It. is lfl'§.l;V_eVHV'thEl:l: the amount of cdmpensation ti'b:A:.a:VnA'"«.accident victim should invariably include bécci'i'ii_e.ty'Ta'ii~;i_n?§n':pecuniary damages. The compensation .eward"ed ifaiitldiur of road traffic accident victim should be has been held in the case of Reshma Kumari Vs. 4'.'_&i§'lz§dfia"n":i\/lohan, (2009) 13 sec 422. If the victim of an V'.:'.4:vai:t:'iEi:ient suffered permanent disability, he shouid be wawarded just compensation not dniy for the injuries sustained and the treatment but aiso for the pain, \.i\ "ii 8 suffering and trauma caused due to accident and loss of future earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal"r'.l_i:f'e_V and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed,"'bti.:~_v«.fo'r _ the disability suffered due to the injuries sustvainjediniitrhge "
road traffic accident.
9. Claimant has categorica'l--vl.y"'~state.d'*he'fo.re{_:theiM'ACT that he sustained griev_ous to éth'ei--i»»ac§cident caused by the driver of at City Central the treatment .Dr.Anil S.Nelivigi as PW.2. {LillihéaCl_"'s~urs§tained crush injury to left leg loss and skin over his foot and that-i..iVnjurerj Au-._nde~'rwent surgery in the form of ,f'c\'\'V9U"-5i3'A:d5?.5i'id.¢WeAn't'~..__nd' K wire fixation on 9.8.2008 and form order of dixerficasation to 3"; 4'".'a.n'd'é slough excision on 19.8.2009 and it'~:_._another~~r}:n';.2;.8.2008 in the form of skin grafting and was on 10.9.2008. PW,2 has assessed permanent ..._"V"disa:bility suffered at 25 to 30%. Ex.P131 is the disability is certificate issued by PW.2, which shows that the cla«ijr'na_'nt"'-,3' has the following disability:
"Crush injury of left foot w;itih.._4loss:fHoVf"*e>tte'rio:r tenderness and skin over his fo't>t."1'_A_'f "
10. Ex.P13O to 136 are""i't.h;e photograipfhsllthe claimant which show that;::toa_sta'n.d :.a_n,d'~-move,V"heVVhas to use the support of .--"ei.roijnjstances, the permanent :§ir525% to 30% is justified. 'flit; 'taking the physical 1/léldof the assessment i.e., 30% just and reasonable compensationékun_der.t*he'*hea'd 'loss of future earnings'. E'jr:hey_ reco'td.....w.o'u|d show that as on the date of "'ac:idenVt,,the*«cVlairnant was aged about 22 years and was and that as a result of the accident,
-he had t0--V:'re'rh:ain in hospital for different durations and "v.4'i§he'i'eforeV° there is total toss of earnings during eho"s.pi'tai'isation and rest periods. \\ "/1', 10
12. The record clearly establishes that as a result of the accident, the claimant has suffered 30% disahilit§r.::;to._V_ the lower ieft limb and there can be functional _ atleast 20% in relation to the wholevhhody. * will not be able to do any manual work In the circumstances, the loss of future'iearning.s"hjas:'_vto tie it taken at 20% as against 10% That on account of grievous the traffic accident in question, thecreV--.h_ein.d--.V to the left leg, the left . is loss of amenities __ prospects. The Tribunal 'has__ the material circumstances and the aviiard passed"'hy:.it';--isneither just nor reasonable. is..,Al{E,'$pll'l§Hl'l'i"~-'!§f.53W the record of the case relating sustained, treatment obtained, the i exoenciilture.'.V'Vi-ineuvrred for treatment and the incidental °,.,__i44_"e);penses,:"_";.such as conveyance, nourished diet and L the resultant effect of the physical permanent ..._fldisa;bility and also functional disability, loss of amenities of 'it /I aliowed in part and compensation payable by __"~i«i;he'§respondents is determined at 34,03,800/-- with interest ""V>.:aHtw6°/o pie. from the date of filing of the petition til? the date ofdeposit in the MACT. 'K .'1:1 life and the expenses to be incurred in future fer of treatment and aiso toss of marriage opinion, the just and reasonabie compe_n4sat_i0"n'''ein:ieh:::t'fig '4 respondents have to pay to the 'A
(i) Towards pain and suffenng trauma caused due to ae(;:id.ent »
(ii) Medical expensveezas per"'b-iijs: ?"'80;u0O/-- 464
(iii) Incidental expenses/Ce__n§<efya'né::e..,:'i _ nourished diet and"a.ttend{ant'~, chargesi' " V ' "
/W 35,000/--
(iv) Los_s.-{if . it it on acceunt ofidiSa'bi1ii:y.:_;
?'1,72,8OO/-
(v)'t_0ss 'ii'n-genie iciu:Ein_g iaid "0_ff'per'io.d:*«?4.0f3.Qx4;§;_. ? 16,000/~ (V) Less of a'me'n'iti,es---.of life _ inciedingelc;_ss'~of'm'arriage _; " prospects"and amount to be gsspeint for"fu--t-ure treatment: 3 50,000/-- D Total: 31,03,800 uIEn..':"the"'4'.resu!t, MFA No.8256/2011 filed by the 12 Consequentty, MFA No.8248/2011 flied by the respondents being devoid of merit, stands dismissed:vyy{ETtt;i"'T._V_ costs of ?2,000/-.
Sri D.P'Mahesh, iearned counseljs perm~ittédjtfij'-fiI'e "
vakalath within 4weeks i.e., in MFA AA Ksj/-
/////////////W//"////////*///////'//W/2%»/;v/m;»;;;«