Allowed

Kumar Madhur v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022MFA/100457/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the Tribunal's compensation award for injuries sustained in an MSRTC bus accident, alleging inadequate quantification due to high disability and lost future income. The High Court reassessed damages based on medical evidence, youth of the claimant, and affirmative orders from the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,35,000 with interest at 9% p.a., payable within six weeks by the respondent.

Kumar Madhur Vs the General Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶4

BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100457 OF

¶9

2015 (MV-)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

KUMAR MADHUR

¶12

S/O MAHENDRAKUMAR UPADHYA, AGED: ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: BAR BENDING AND CENTERING (NOW NIL), R/O: CHUMARI, TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶17

MSRTC KOLHAPUR, TALUK AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. (OWNER OF MSRTC BUS NO.MH-14/BT-1014)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.922/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-III BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

¶22

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

This appeal is filed challenging the judgement and award passed in MVC No.922/2014 on the file of Presiding Officer, FTC-III Court at Belagavi, questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶27

Factual matrix of the case of the claimant

¶28

before the Tribunal is that on 05.05.2014 at about 9.15 a.m. he was travelling in MSRTC bus and when the said bus reached near main bus stand, Sangli from where he has to take his further journey by catching another bus. In the said bus he took journey by standing since there were no seats available and when the said bus reached near main bus stand of Sangli town, the driver suddenly turned the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶31

petitioner jerked and thrown out from the bus. As a result, he had sustained severe injuries and immediately he was shifted to Bharati hospital and he took treatment for 25 days as inpatient by spending Rs.3,50,000/-. It is also his case that he was aged 21 years and he was doing centering work and earning Rs.700/- per day and due to the accidental injuries he was subjected to surgery and his left leg was amputed and hence he become permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. Hence, he laid a claim before the Tribunal.

¶32

In support of his case, the claimant examined

¶33

as PW.1 and doctor was examined as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand, the respondent has not led any evidence.

¶34

The Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.9,93,000/- with 9% interest.

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶37

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

¶38

award, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant

¶40

would vehemently contend that the Court has to take functional disability of 100% but the Tribunal has taken only 70% and the Tribunal has taken income of Rs.200/per day instead of he is deposing that he was getting Rs.700/- per day. He also submits that the compensation awarded on other heads is also meager and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶41

He further contends that in view of the

¶42

judgements in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar (2014 (5) SCC 330) and Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (2014) 2 SCC 735 , the Tribunal ought to have taken future prospects and the same has not been considered and the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-

¶46

MSRTC would submit that in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month and also awarded compensation on all other heads and the compensation awarded on the head future loss of earning by considering 70% disability is exorbitant and no grounds are made out to enhance the compensation.

¶47

In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶48

the following points would arise for consideration:

¶49

i. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

¶50

ii. What order?

¶51

Regarding Point No.1 : Having heard the

¶52

learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the injured has sustained injuries to his left leg and he has undergone surgery and his leg below the knee was also amupted and he had suffered

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶55

degloving injury and compound fracture. Learned counsel for the claimant relied upon Exs.P.12 to 14 to show that his leg was also amputed. Apart from that he has also examined doctor as PW.2 and he has assessed the disability at 70% to the left lower limb. The Tribunal has taken income of Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident has taken place in the year 2014 and the notional income for the accidental claims of the year 2014 would be Rs.7,500/-. Hence, the compensation on the head loss of future income has to be reassessed.

¶56

The fact that claimant is aged below 25 years is not in dispute and the relevant multiplier would be 18. In the judgements in Sanjay Kumar and Syed Sadiq , supra the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of permanent disability is concerned, taken note of the fact that future loss of income is also to be assessed. When such being the material on record, 50% is to be added as future loss of income to the income of the claimant. Hence, the

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶59

compensation payable on the head loss of future income would be as under:

¶60

Rs.7,500 + 50% = Rs.11,250 x 12 x 18 x 70% = Rs.17,01,000/- .

¶61

The compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering is also meager and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- on the said head and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- . Towards loss of comfort and amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/-. Since the claimant s aged about 22 years and he has to lead rest of his life with disability of 70%, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.75,000/- .

¶62

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,000/- towards medical expenses and apart from that only given Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges and other incidental expenses. The claimant he was inpatient for a period of 25 days as per Exs.P.9 and P.10 and hence considering the same, Rs.34,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶65

The claimant is also unmarried and the same has been pleaded in the claim petition and the same is not disputed in the cross-examination of the injured and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of loss of marriage prospects and hence it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the head of loss of marriage prospects. The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation on the head of artificial limb and the doctor who is examined before the Tribunal in his evidence stated that if artificial limb is used he can work with the support of stick and it is also elicited that if artificial limb is used he can do some work in sitting position and having taken note of the evidence of PW.2, it is appropriate to award Rs.75,000/- on the head artificial limb since the same has to be changed periodically and no material is placed before the Court by the claimant with regard to cost of artificial limb.

¶66

Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for

¶67

Rs.20,35,000/- . Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶68

¶69

MFA No. 100457 of 2015

¶70

Regarding point No.2 : In view of the

¶71

discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶74

In modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,35,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. as against Rs.9,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award.

¶75

Apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶76

Respondent to pay the difference amount within six

¶77

weeks from today.

¶78

The registry is directed to transmit the trial court records forthwith.

¶79

¶80

Sd/JUDGE