Partly allowed

Ramappa S/O Siddalingappa, v. Dahulsab S/O Rehman

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022MFA.CROB/100031/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court modified an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident case. The court partly allowed the appeal and cross-objection, directing enhancement of compensation to Rs. 2,22,300/- for a victim of femur fracture, while disallowing future medical expenses due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,22,300/-; the Tribunal order modified; future medical expenses disallowed.

Ramappa S/O Siddalingappa, Vs Dahulsab S/O Rehman — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 25108 of 2011

¶3

C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5

DHARWAD BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25108 OF 2011 (MV-I) C/W

¶10

MFA. CROB. NO. 100031 OF 2015

¶11

IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25108 OF 2011:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

¶14

KSRTC DEPOT, SIRUGUPPA DIVISION BALLARI DISTRICT

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

RAMAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA

¶19

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE-CUM-AGRICULTURIST R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK BALLARI DISTRICT

¶20

DAHUL SAB S/O REHAMAN MAJOR, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 34/F 505, SIRUGUPPA DEPOT BALLARI DISTRICT

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

¶23

¶24

MFA No. 25108 of 2011

¶25

C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2011, PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1250/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-X, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,45,460/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶27

IN MFA. CROB. NO. 100031 OF 2015:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

RAMAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE-CUM-AGRICULTURIST R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK BALLARI DISTRICT

¶30

…CROSS OBJECTOR

¶31

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

DAHUL SAB S/O REHAMAN MAJOR, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 34/F 505, SIRUGUPPA DEPOT BALLARI DISTRICT

¶34

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC DEPOT, SIRUGUPPA DIVISION BALLARI DISTRICT

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶37

THIS MFA.CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2011, PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1250/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-X, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶40

THESE MFA AND MFA.CROB ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellantKSRTC., in MFA No.25108/2011 and the learned counsel

¶43

appearing for the Cross Objector-claimant in MFA.CROB.No.100031/2015.

¶44

MFA No.25108/2011 and

¶45

MFA.CROB.No.100031/2015, are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 11.07.2011 passed in MVC No.1250/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Ballari (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶46

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 12.04.2010 at about 1:00 p.m., the petitioner was travelling along with paddy load on Tractor and Trailer and at that time, respondent No.1, being the driver of KSRTC., bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from hind side that is from Ballari and dashed against the Tractor and Trailer, as a result it turtled and the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. Hence, the

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶49

claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

¶50

To substantiate his claim, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 12% to the whole body and allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,460/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the KSRTC., has filed MFA.No25108/2011 questioning the quantum of compensation. On the other hand, the claimant has filed MFA. CROB.No.100031/2015 for enhancement of compensation.

¶51

The very contention of learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC., is that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the disability at 12% and ought to have taken the lesser disability and failed to consider the fracture is united and awarded exorbitant compensation. The learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the finding on the part of the

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶54

negligence is erroneous and it requires an interference of this Court.

¶55

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/claimant would vehemently contend that the accident was taken place on 12.04.2010. The Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.3,600/- per month. The appropriate notional income would be Rs.5,500/-. He was an inpatient for a period of 20 days. The compensation awarded towards attendant charges and nursing and nourishment charges was Rs.3,000/each, Rs.7,200/- towards Loss of earning during the treatment period and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of amenities. On all these heads, the meager compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

In reply to the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/claimant, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC., would submit that without any evidence before the Tribunal that he needs further future medical treatment, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation on the head of future medical expenses. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶60

parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶61

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence?

¶62

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an exorbitant compensation?

¶63

(iii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation as contended by the claimants?

¶64

(iv) What order?

¶65

Point No.(i):

¶66

In respect of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC., is that the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence since the injured was sitting on the Tractor on the load and the fact is that the specific allegation is made that the driver of the Bus went behind and hit the tractor, as a result, he fell down and sustained the injuries. When such being the material available on record, the fact is against the driver of the bus. If the driver of the bus

¶67

¶68

MFA No. 25108 of 2011

¶69

C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶70

driven the vehicle in a slow manner and not hit the vehicle on the behind of the tractor, an accident would not have been occurred. Whether he was sitting on the tractor along with paddy load is immaterial. Hence, the very contention that no contributory negligence is taken, cannot be accepted. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as negative.

¶71

Point Nos.(ii) & (iii):

¶72

Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 12.04.2010 and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings. It was an accident of the year 2010 and he has suffered the fracture of femur. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable on the head of pain and sufferings. Towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.6,500/- was awarded based on the medical bills, the same are not call for any interference.

¶73

With regard to attendant charges, a sum of Rs.3,000/-, towards Nursing and extra nourishment charges, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was awarded, which are on lesser side since

¶74

¶75

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶76

the injured was in the hospital for a period of 20 days. When such being the material on record, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶77

Towards loss of earning during the treatment period, the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.3,600/- per month and considered the same only for two months. When the femur bone was fractured, it requires minimum four months for uniting the fracture. Hence, it is appropriate to consider the loss of earning during the treatment period by taking the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month, it comes to Rs.22,000/- towards loss of earning during the treatment period.

¶78

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of amenities. The injured is aged about 40 years and the Doctor also assessed the disability at 12% and the fracture is also united and the petitioner has to lead rest of his life with the said disability. Hence, it requires

¶79

¶80

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶81

enhancement and it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶82

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of future medical treatment. But no evidence before the Court with regard to the claimant is in need of future medical treatment. Hence, the same cannot be considered. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of future medical treatment.

¶83

Coming to the disability is concerned, the notional income would be Rs.5,500/- instead of that the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,600/- per month. Hence, it requires to be reassessed the loss of future income. No doubt, the Doctor, who has examined is not the treated Doctor, but he is also a Specialist in Orthopedics. He assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body but the Tribunal has taken 12%. Having taken note of the femur bone was fractured, it is appropriate to consider 12% disability by taking the notional income of

¶84

10 -

¶85

MFA No. 25108 of 2011

¶86

C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶87

Rs.5,500/- with multiplier 15. Hence, it comes to Rs.1,18,800/(5500 x 12 x 12x 15%).

¶88

In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,22,300/- as against Rs.1,45,460/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I answer point Nos.(ii) and (iii) accordingly.

¶89

Point No.(iv):

¶90

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶91

following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

i) The appeal filed by the KSRTC., in MFA No.25108/2011 and the Cross Objection filed by the claimant in MFA.CROB.No.100031/2015, are allowed in part .

¶94

ii) The judgment and award dated 11.07.2011 passed in MVC No.1250/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Ballari, stand modified.

¶95

iii) The claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.2,22,300/- as against the sum of Rs.1,45,460/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶96

11 -

¶97

MFA No. 25108 of 2011 C/W. MFA.CROB No. 100031 of 2015

¶98

iv) The claimant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 1049 days in filing the cross objection insofar as the enhancement amount is concerned.

¶99

v) The amount deposited by the KSRTC., is ordered to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal forthwith and directed to pay the difference amount within six weeks.

¶100

vi) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶101

cp*

¶102

Sd/JUDGE

Ramappa S/O Siddalingappa, v. Dahulsab S/O Rehman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramappa S/O Siddalingappa, v. Dahulsab S/O Rehman

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

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar Vs Gajanan S/O Balasaheb Bolaji

D K Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Ms.Yogashree H.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumar Madhur Vs the General Manager

Ankush Vs the General Manager

Lakkawwa S/O Kumar Bajantri Vs Ravindra Maruti Pattrut