Karnataka High Court
N Ramu S/O Late Narayanappa vs The Divisional Manager Karnataka State ... on 21 October, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, H.S.Kempanna
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2181' DAY OF OCPOBER, 2Q
: PRESENT :
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K~. 1--P}j1f:1L%.t.j: _ 3
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JU-sjrxcfi1{;'s.KE:vi*PAi§fNA"_i';
M.F.A.NO. 624%"C) F :zv0os'(M_u\:_/J1'
Between:
N.Ramu _ .
S/0. Late Nara3ca1*:app§»;a, I
Aged 36 years, . .
R/at N0. 93,
S1gapur. . ¢_
V1dyanayap'ura Past,
Bar1ga1ore--9C!,_.. N
{By Sfi; Shripad;V;;S1;ia--stfi«=. Advocate}
The Divisiqnal Manager,
. A 'Karnataka State Road Transport
VC0'rpV0r_at10tn3 IQH. Road,
._ Banga1t):e~2.7;"
[By -KfZ'Nagaraja, Advocate]
*$****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1)
.. . Appellant
... Respondent
of MV Act against the "-V 'J'J.'dgIf1€1'lt and Award dated: 28/02/2005 passed 1n MVC No.7'59 / 2003 on the file of the VI Add]. Small Causes Judge 5 and MACT, Bangalore [SCCH--2}, partly ailowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. .
This MFA coming on for Hearing, N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following: . 0' 5 . V. JUDoMeNr,nbI This appeal by the cl>airnant._is'directed V' impugned judgment and laarriard dat.e_d"*,?..8il?v_l5ebruaryV 2005, passed inVf M.,v.e,i§i1(§,i#a§;'--2ooa,0l"byt the VI Additional Sniall Causes Accident Claims (for short, Tribunal: 0' compensation on the ground of $75, 140/ - awarded in his faifoiirt as'- claim for $06.00 lakhs, is in2_;§1equate."' ~ it appellant claims to be aged about 34 '-years, Working as driver of Auto, and earning a sum of 3530,0000,/4' éber month. He was hale and healthy prior to 2 the date of accident. That at about 6:30 A.M., on 15- AV§l'2N--2002, on K.K. Road, near Shivananda Circle, Bangalore, the appellant met with an accident on A account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending bus bearing No.KA~o7/E561. As aresjult of the same, the appellant fell down grievous injuries, such as fracture sinus, fracture of right frontal b:one_"ar1d anteriolr :c::a'ii,i_al fossa, diffuse cerebral oe.d"erna vvith. damage to eye sight,,.etc.
3. It is the case of that on account of the he has taken treatment in' the Hospital as in-
patie'rit',"'duringlli$vliic'l1;perio'd,'"h'e has spent considerable:
amount «.towards,conveggance, nourishing food and attendant "chargeslincluding medical expenses and other Aiiicide'ntal expelnsesl and the Doctor has assessed whole at 40% and the Ophthalmologist has a's_ses_serlf.w30% disability towards visual blindness and ., therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.
4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the %W I Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of ?06.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said elairrrpetition had come up for consideration before the_.7_l'ribiQ1r2r,@']'\li.-91;, 28"" February 2005. The Tribunal, after.::(:onsivd¢I'i.ng= the relevant material available defile. appreciation of the oral" and docurnent.ar3§r_'evidence.,0' allowed the claim petitionpr.inA"'par't.,' awa1*d.i1'1g,Ea sum of ?'75,140/ -- with intereslt'at' from the date of petition 0' deducting 50% towards the part of the appelllantrl. with the quantum of the Tribunal and also contributory' nregligenee fixed at 50% on the appellant, appellantlVis""in appeal before this Court, seeking of compensation and to set aside the negligence fixed on him.
5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for Corporation for considerable length of time.
6 and agony. It is stated that he has taken treatment for a total period of ll days in the Hospital. Durir.ig.this period, he must have spent some arno1_.i.:n't'*« conveyance, nourishing food and att.e'ndant'"ch'arges;", apart from medical expenses. The.'_'doctor_ has assessed the Visual disability at .4€:J°/oh inll' respect of whole body. assessed the said disability atlll lower side and needs to be regard to the nature the percentage of visual \Kf1'tl*1"the age and the fact that the vire re--assess the whole body disabilityhiaij' 30}?/o;'--._to'~"'lrr1eet the ends of justice. The paplpeiAleant.y.p being""aged only 34 years, at the time of endure this disability for the rest of his life and find some difficulty in doing his work as by effectiyely as before. Having regard to the nature of l ';_l'inj*uries sustained in the accident, we presume that he would have taken follow-up treatment and bed rest at least for a period of three months. Since the appellant % Z, WWWM was aged 34 years, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the decision of the Horfble Apex: Court',in»»_:S§ria Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298).
into consideration all the above aspects re! determine compensation by awarding_ s:i'rn"i:of ?10,000/-- towards conveyance, Ariourishivngiffoodj attendant charges as ?9,000/--
towards loss of incorne Permd» taking the incomeiof 'per month for a period of /--, €40,000/-
'€0wai'dS"' against ?30,000/- :
r1,7.é}8oo/4 12 x 'I6' x 30/ 100) towards loss of f1iture.in*coir_1e""as against ?77,280/- awarded by _andV'Va"'"suir1 of ?20,000/-- towards loss of I V*discomforts, and unhappiness on account of disab.,i1ity.§'.V-
8. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of injuries %....._...
sustained and the nature and duration of treatment, we award a sum of ?10,()O0/- towards future...Vrl1e'dical expenses.
9. However, a sum Tribunal towards medieal_V."e.xpen'ses is the' medical bills produced and----i--s:j11s"t..pand r'ea.son§able and hence, it does not call for iizterierenhre _ 10.2? faets'and circumstances of the rjase',"a.:$; stated 't'h'e"appeal filed by appellant is allowed judgment and award dated 28*}? _:Februaryl'é005, passed in M.V.C.No.759/ ..thelVT"AVdditional Small Causes Judge and Claims Tribunal, Bangalore {SCCH--2], is h-e_re'oy'* lrnoddified, awarding a sum of ?2,95.800/-- as x against ?l.50,280/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest l ';_VVat~ES"/o per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The breakwup is as follows:
r_'_h___,_fl__,..._A Towards Pain and sufferings 40,000/-- /\R»"H Towards Loss of amenities 8:
20,000/_--
enjoyment in iife * "
Towards Medical Expenses ? '«~;.~ V Towards conveyance. nourishing ? food and attendant charges Towards Loss of earning during. A treatment period p p __ Towards loss of future income A' ?°i._V72,8O0L/W; Towards future medical expenses" . T ?' aWd}'Q..OOO}f~ " E2 .' 1?2*,95,Sod/-
The appellant.is..;entit1'e'd'.to' dcovtnpeinsation of ?l,47,900/-- {i.e. after deducting Vnegiigence on the part of compensation comes .9o0/- - €75,140/-) with interest! from the date of petition till date dd The'=.__Corporation is directed to deposit the ._ VAV.t'co"n1pensation of ?72,"/'60/--, with interest 6% per annum, within four weeks from the V A' datevvof receipt of copy of the judgment and award. On such deposit by the Corporation. out of the H enhanced compensation of 372.760/--. 50% of it with %W proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Banka'-i,n~..the name of the appellant, for a period of renewable for another five years, p_errnissfio'n tovhirnu " » to withdraw the periodical interlestffll " The remaining 50% ofthe enha_need ~eornpensation~ V with proportionate interest,_releas'ed .i.1~"1§ favour of the appellant, immediately: Office itotdraw Sd/~ Edge Sd/--
Judge