Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa @ Thimmanna vs The Managing Director on 8 June, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO.9220 OF 2011 (MV)
Between:
Sri. Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa
@ Thimmanna,
S/o. Sallaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at. Kallipalya,
Adagur Post, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
... Appellant
(By Shri. N.Gopalkrishna & Shri. J.G.Kumbar, Advocates)
And:
The Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C.,
Central Office,
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-27.
... Respondent
(By Shri. B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate)
*****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 18/06/2010 passed in MVC No.
1338/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Gubbi, partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th June 2010 passed in MVC No. 1338/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gubbi, (for short, 'Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `2,32,405/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `6,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 35 years, working as Manager in CBI Bricks Factory, Kallipalya, earning a sum of `7,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 1:00 P.M, on 25-07-2007, near Mallasandra village, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of a KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-18/F-0115 is not in dispute. It is also 3 not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grade I compound bicondlar fracture of right tibia and 80-90% to the right lower limb and 30% to the whole body. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Shri. Sidhartha Medical College Hospital, Tumkur, where he was admitted as in-patient for nearly a month.
3. It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
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 Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `6,00,000/- 4 against the respondent/Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th June, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `2,32,405/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Corporation.
5
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Corporation and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of `39,905/- towards medical expenses and `30,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence it does not call for interference. However, so far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation and therefore, it requires enhancement.
7. After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained grade I compound bicondlar fracture of right tibia and 80-90% to the right lower limb and 30% to the whole body. Further, the monthly income of `3,000/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. Having regard to the 6 age, avocation and the year of accident, I re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at `4,500/, to meet the ends of justice. For the age of the appellant, the proper multiplier applicable is '15' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) as against '16' adopted by Tribunal. Further, the Doctor has assessed disability of 80%-90% to the right lower limb and 30% to the whole body. However, the whole body disability of 25% assessed by Tribunal is just and proper, as it is based on the oral and documentary evidence available on file and I accept the same. The appellant has to endure this disability for the rest of his life and cannot do his work as he was doing earlier. Admittedly, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in the Hospital for some period. During the period of treatment, the appellant must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I presume that he should have taken 7 bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for a period of three months. Further, during the period of treatment, he would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation and the nature and duration of treatment, I award a sum of `20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against `5,000/- ; `30,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against `15,000/-; `13,500/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of `4,500/- per month for a period of three months as against `4,500/-; `2,02,500/- towards loss of future income (i.e. `4,500/-x 12x '15' x25/100) as against `1,44,000/- and `20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against `4,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of 8 `3,55,905/-, with interest at 6% per annum as against `2,32,405/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows:
Towards Pain and sufferings ` 30,000/-
Towards Medical Expenses ` 39,905/- Towards loss of future income `2,02,500/-
Towards conveyance, nourishing food and ` 20,000/- attendant charges Towards loss of earning during treatment ` 13,500/- period Towards loss of amenities, discomfort and ` 20,000/- unhappiness Towards future medical expenses ` 30,000/-
Total`3,55,905/-
8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 18th June 2010 passed in MVC No. 1338/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gubbi, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of `3,55,905/-, with interest at 6% per annum, as against `2,32,405/-, awarded by Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of 9 compensation of `1,23,500/- with 6% interest per annum.
The respondent - Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Corporation, 50% shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in Fixed Deposit, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for another five years, with liberty reserved to the appellant to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining 50% shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*