Partly allowed

Rajanna v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2021MFA/391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly, enhancing compensation from reimbursement levels to Rs.3,54,035/- by re-evaluating monthly income to Rs.9,000 and disability to 25%, while retaining the Tribunal's finding of liability. A total of Rs.3,54,035/- was awarded with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,54,035/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Rajanna Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.391/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

RAJANNA S/O LATE RANGAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, K.GOLLAHALI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560074. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI C.PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)

¶14

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.295/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT (SCCH-25), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.08.2017 passed in MVC No.295/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-25) (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶19

The claimant instituted petition under

¶20

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

¶21

It was averred in the claim petition that on 09.03.2015 at about 4.45 a.m., when the claimant and others were proceeding in a BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-FA-675 (offending vehicle) as passengers from Gonipura to K.R. Market, near Minto Hospital Circle, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

¶22

¶23

Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AB-5434, owing to which the claimant and other inmates of the bus sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein he took first-

¶24

aid treatment and got shifted to H.K. Hospital, Bengaluru – Mysuru Road, Kengeri. Thereafter, he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital and then to Shreya Hospital, Kengeri Upanagara, Kengeri. Further he was admitted to Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute in the department of Neuro – Surgery and he was treated from 31.07.2015 to 17.08.2015 as an inpatient and he has incurred huge amount towards the medical expenses.

¶25

It was contended that prior to accident,

¶26

injured was doing agriculture and carpenter work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he has become permanently disabled. He has immobility of both the upper and lower limbs. He lost his earning

¶27

¶28

capacity as earlier. The accidental injuries has caused mental agony etc., On these set of facts and grounds, the claimant sought for compensation.

¶29

In response to the notice issued, the respondent – BMTC (Corporation) appeared and contested the claim denying the petition averments. It was contended that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Accordingly, sought for the dismissal of the petition.

¶30

This petition was clubbed with other petitions arising out of the same accident and a common judgment was passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after framing the issues and answering the same as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment has partly allowed the petition filed by the claimant in MVC No.295/2016, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,28,500/- with interest at the rate

¶31

- 5 -

¶32

of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

¶34

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not based on the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant. The impact of injuries being grievous in nature, the compensation awarded under different heads is meager and the same requires to be enhanced substantially.

¶36

Learned counsel for the Corporation

¶37

submitted that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of material evidence has awarded just and reasonable

¶38

¶39

compensation and the same deserves to be confirmed dismissing the appeal.

¶40

We have carefully considered the rival

¶41

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.

¶42

It is discernable that the claimant contended

¶43

that he was doing the agricultural work along with the carpentry work and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, no documentary and ocular evidence being produced, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/-. In the absence of proof of income, this Court is consistently referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to determine the income of the victim of the road traffic accident, notionally. Having regard to the same, the monthly income of the deceased could be safely re-determined at Rs.9,000/-.

¶44

¶45

The injured was aged about 62 years as

¶46

could be seen from the medical records. Dr. Nagesh who

¶47

was examined as PW.5 deposed that the

¶48

injured/claimant had suffered the disability to the whole body at 75%. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment taken and the duration of the treatment period, the Tribunal has assessed the disability to the whole body at 20%.

¶49

As per the discharge summary - Ex.P8, the claimant has sustained Cervical Compressive Myelopathy, undergone surgery of C3, C4, C5, C6 Laminectomy and Disectomy and treated as an inpatient from 31.07.2015 to 17.,08.2015 nearly for about 18 days. The wound certificate at Ex.P6 would disclose that the claimant has suffered tenderness in both knees. X-ray of both knees would indicate no fractures and all these injuries are simple in nature. Having regard to this wound certificate at Ex.P6 and

¶50

¶51

Ex.P7 MRI report showing degenerative spine changes, the Tribunal considering the age of the injured/claimant as 62 years has held that the degenerative spine changes is related to the age factor and not due to the accident in question. Accordingly, assessed the disability to the whole body to the extent of 20%. However, considering the disability of both the upper and lower limbs which would cause lot of tribulations and inconvenience for the rest of the life of injured, we deem it appropriate to consider the disability of 25% to the whole body to compute the loss of future income due to disability. Taking the monthly income of Rs.9,000/with disability of 25%, applying the

¶52

multiplier of ‘7’, the loss of future income due to disability would work out to Rs.1,89,000/- (9,000 x 12 x 7 x 25%).

¶53

Having regard to the facts and

¶54

circumstances, we deem it appropriate to award a sum

¶55

¶56

of Rs.50,000/towards pain and sufferings;

¶57

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs.25,000/towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges and Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Medical expenses of Rs.13,035/awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.

¶58

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶59

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

¶60

as under:

¶61

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Painand sufferings	50,000/-
2.	Medicalexpenses	13,035/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period	27,000/-
4.	Loss of future income due to disability	1,89,000/-
5.	Loss of future amenities andhappiness	50,000/-
6.	Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges	25,000/-
	Total	3,54,035/-

¶62

Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,54,035/- with interest at the rate

¶63

- 10 -

¶64

of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation

¶65

amount from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶66

Hence, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,54,035/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Thirty Five only) as against Rs.2,28,435/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶70

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶71

iv) The Corporation shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶72

11 -

¶73

v) The modified compensation amount shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. vi) Draw modified award accordingly. vii) The Registry shall transfer the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶74

viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶75

SD/JUDGE

¶76

SD/JUDGE

¶77

PMR

Rajanna v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevu C M Vs the Manager

Iliyas. M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs Madhu G Murugan

Smt Rekha Vs M/S Vrl Logistics

Sri. D.H. Chandrappa Vs M/S Vrl Logistics