This bench enhanced compensation awarded in motor vehicle accident cases filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, revising quantum based on notional income assessments and increased awards for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.7,08,660 for Swamynathan K and Rs.28,53,700 for Selvaraj P with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.237/2020 (MV-I) C/W
M.F.A. No.8946/2019 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A. No.237/2020:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SWAMYNATHAN.K S/O KARAPPASWAMY AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS VINOBANAGAR, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST.-577 101. ...APPELLANT
[BY SRI. M.B.RYAKHA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND:
THE DEPOT MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST.577 101. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., AND SMT.RAMYA H.N., ADVOCATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1131/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
2
IN M.F.A. No.8946 /2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SELVARAJ.P S/O PERIYASAMI AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS 4TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST.-577 101. ...APPELLANT
[BY SRI. M.B.RYAKHA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND:
THE DEPOT MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST.577 101. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., AND SMT.RAMYA H.N., ADVOCATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.09.2018 PASSED ON MVC NO.1132/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 20.09.2018 passed in MVC No.1131/2016 and MVC
No.1132/2016 by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), these appeals
3
are filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘M.V.Act’ for short).
4
IN M.V.C.No.1131/2016
IN M.V.C.No.1132/2016
were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. Claimant in MVC No.1131/2016 – Swamynathan was examined
5
as PW1, while Selvaraj - claimant in MVC No.1132/2016 was examined as PW2. Exhibits P.1 to P.17 were marked. Medical records of claimants were marked as Ex.C.1 to 4 in each claim. On behalf of respondent driver of bus was examined as RW.1, but no documents were produced.
IN MFA.No.237/2020:
viz., Swamynathan K, submitted that compensation determined by tribunal was contrary to facts and evidence on record and assessment of compensation by tribunal was grossly inadequate.
6
It was specifically submitted that claimant was 41 years of age as on date of accident and doing business in home needs and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He sustained permanent physical disability of 21%. However, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.9,500/- and loss of earning capacity at 12% awarded meager compensation of Rs.6,50,520/-. It was submitted that claimant substantiated his income by producing income tax returns as per Ex.P.13. It was submitted that tribunal erred in considering lower monthly income and meager disability. It was also submitted that award passed by tribunal towards ‘loss of amenities’, ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘incidental charges’ etc., was inadequate and sought for enhancement.
IN MFA.No.8946/2019:
7
sustained permanent physical disability at 80%. However, tribunal considered his monthly income only Rs.9,500/- and loss of earning capacity at 30% and awarded meager compensation of Rs.19,97,600/-. It was submitted that tribunal was erred in considering lower monthly income and meager disability. It was also submitted that award towards ‘loss of amenities’, ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘incidental charges’ etc., was inadequate, sought enhancement.
8
physical disability are not in dispute. Age and occupation of claimants are also not in dispute. The only dispute is regarding monthly income, extent of loss of earning capacity and assessment of compensation. Claim petitions were filed by them are allowed in part, but they are in appeal seeking enhancement. Respondent-Corporation has not challenged the award. Therefore, liability of Corporation to pay compensation is also not in dispute. Hence, the only point that arises for our consideration in these appeals are:
“Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?”
MVC NO.1131/2016:
of age, doing business in home needs. In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries viz., closed neck femur fracture with shaft of femur fracture and chest injury. He took treatment at M.C.Hospital Tumakuru and Ganga Medical Centre, Coimbatore, as inpatient. He underwent surgery and implants were inserted. In order to establish same, claimant produced medical bills as per Ex.P.11; prescriptions as per Ex.P.12; income tax returns as per Ex.P.13, X-rays, Case sheet and disability certificate marked through Court Commissioner as Exs.C1 to C4 respectively. From
9
the said documents, it is established that claimant sustained injuries and took treatment spending money. Medical bills for Rs.1,99,038/were produced and tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Since entire amount spent towards medical expenses was reimbursed, there is no scope for enhancement.
10
Though it is contended that because of disability sustained, claimant is unable to continue his avocation and has lost earning capacity. Claimant has not examined any doctor to establish the same. The tribunal has considered loss of earning capacity at 21%. There is no challenge to the same by respondentCorporation. Therefore, loss of earning capacity is considered at 21%. Claimant is aged 41 years, proper multiplier applicable would be ‘14’. Therefore, future loss of earning would be:
Rs.9,500/- X 21% X 12 X 14 = Rs.3,35,160/-
11
Admittedly, claimant sustained neck of femur fracture with shaft of femur. The award of tribunal towards ‘pain and suffering’ is inadequate. It would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
would be:
| 1 | Medical expenses | Rs.2,00,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Loss of income during laid up period |
Rs. 28,500/- |
| 3 | Future loss of income | Rs.3,35,160/- |
| 4 | Future Medical expenses | Rs. 20,000/- |
| 5 | Attendant charges | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 6 | Loss of amenities | Rs. 40,000/- |
| 7 | Conveyance | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 8 | Nutrition & diet charges | Rs. 5,000/- |
| 9 | Pain and suffering | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Total | Rs.7,08,660/- |
12
MVC No.1132/2016:
13
14
tribunal and permanent physical disability of claimant is accepted by it. As per Ex.C1- disability certificate issued, claimant has sustained 80% permanent physical disability to left lower limb (Sic for right lower limb) due to amputation above knee upto lower 1/3 of thigh. Considering age of claimant at 42 years and his avocation, it is deemed to be appropriate by this Court to consider loss of earning capacity at 70%, corresponding to extent of disability mentioned in the schedule to EC Act. Therefore, loss of future earning calculated by applying multiplier ‘14’ would be:
Rs.9,500/- X 70% X 12 X 14 = Rs.11,17,200/-.
15
charges and Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance charges are justified and do not call for interference.
16
| 1 | Medical expenses | Rs.13,78,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Loss of income during laid up period |
Rs. 28,500/- |
| 3 | Future loss of income | Rs.11,17,200/- |
| 4 | Attendant charges | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 5 | Loss of amenities | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| 6 | Conveyance | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 7 | Pain and suffering | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| 8 | For purchase of artificial limb |
Rs.1,00,000/- |
| Total | Rs.28,53,700/- |
answered partly in affirmative. Hence, the following
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part. ii) In MFA No.237/2020 total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,08,660/(Rupees Seven Lakhs Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) as against Rs.6,50,520/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization subject to clause (iii).
iii) The claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 343 days, delay caused in
17
filing the appeal before this Court, in terms of the order of this Court dated 16.08.2021.
iv) In MFA No.8946/2019 the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.28,53,700/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred only) as against Rs.19,97,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization subject to clause(v).
v) The claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 348 days caused in filing the appeal before this Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.08.2021.
vi) In both appeals the portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.
vii) The corporation shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal
18
within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Psg*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation sought for in the appeals against the tribunal's award?
Whether the assessment of monthly income, loss of earning capacity, and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs modification?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SWAMYNATHAN.K
SELVARAJ.P
THE DEPOT MANAGER K.S.R.T.C.
S. SUJATHA
RAVI V. HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
