Sanjeevkumar Vs the Depot Manager

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR, SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC NO. 247/2017, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and the respondent-Corporation

¶24

With consent of learned counsel for both the

¶25

parties, this matter is taken for final disposal even though it is slated for admission.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in

¶27

MVC No.247/2017, dated 13.06.2019 by learned II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavazkalyan,

¶28

the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶29

The petitioner met with an accident on 05.10.2016 while he was waiting for the bus at Jiyaguda Hyderabad. A APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11/Z-7190 was

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶31

at the bus stop and while the petitioner was trying to board the bus, the bus driver abruptly moved the same without ascertaining that all the passengers had boarded the bus and as such the petitioner fell down and the rear left tyre run over the left leg of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained the avulsive and fracture injuries to his left leg and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and thereafter, he took treatment at V.S. Mathpati Hospital of Basavakalyan. He was inpatient for a period of 18 days. The petitioner had to undergo several surgeries and plastic surgeries and had suffered the permanent disability on account of the injuries as he was working as a labourer contending that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,000/- per day, he claimed compensation from the respondent-Corporation.

¶32

The petition was opposed by the respondentCorporation contending that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the petitioner himself negligently fell down and had sustained the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶34

injuries and a false case has been foisted against the respondent-Corporation. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary and it denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner.

¶35

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to 14 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the

¶36

respondent. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,94,000/- to the petitioner under following heads:

¶37

Pain and suffering		Rs.20,000/-
Loss of future income		Rs.2,93,760/-
Medical expenses		Rs.1,16,883/-
Conveyance		Rs.5,000/-
Food and nourishment		Rs.20,000/-
Loss of amenities		Rs.10,000/-
Loss of income treatment	during	Rs.18,000/-
Future medical bill		Rs.10,000/-
Total		Rs.4,93,593/-
Rounded off		Rs.4,94,000/-

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶39

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the PW2 had stated that the physical disability of the limb to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal has assessed the same at 17% which is on the lower side. The petitioner being a labourer, had suffered the fractures of both the bones of the left leg and it being a avulsive injury, there is deformity in the leg and therefore, the disability considered by the Tribunal at 17% is on the lower side. He also seek enhancement of the compensation under the remaining heads of the

¶41

compensation.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 17% is proper and correct and there are no sustainable reasons for enhancement of the compensation.

¶43

A careful perusal of the records reveal that the PW2 being a doctor who had treated the petitioner has

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶45

deposed that the petitioner is suffering from post traumatic ankylosis of the left ankle with significant wasting of the muscle of the left foot and left leg affecting his daily activity and mobility. Therefore, he says that there is a disability of 50% to the left lower limb. The testimony of the PW2 would show that he had treated the petitioner in his Nursing Home. The photographs of the petitioner produced at Ex.P13 would show that there is a deformity in the left leg of petitioner. He being a manual labourer, the avulsive injury and the fractures have resulted in a deformity to the limb. This definitely affects his earning capacity and therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner has to be considered at 25%. The wages considered by the Tribunal do not require any reconsideration. Therefore the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.9,000/x 12 x 16 x 25% = Rs.4,32,000/-.

¶46

The loss of income during the laid up period is calculated for 3 months at Rs.27,000/- instead of 2 months as held by the Tribunal.

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶48

12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶49

under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/- which

¶50

needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered and it's long lasting effect on the life of the petitioner, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life is enhanced to

¶51

Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under the remaining heads do not require any enhancement.

¶52

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional

¶53

compensation of Rs.1,87,290/- under the following

¶54

heads:-

¶55

Sl. No.	Heads	Award by the Tribunal	Award by this Court
1	Pain and suffering	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
2	Loss of future income	Rs.2,93,760/-	Rs.4,32,000/-
3	Medical expenses	Rs.1,16,883/-	Rs.1,16,883/-
4	Conveyance	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
5	Food and nourishment	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
6	Loss of amenities	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
7	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.18,000/-	Rs.27,000/-
8	Future medical bill	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,93,593/-	Rs.6,80,883/-
	Less: Award	by the Tribunal	Rs.4,93,593/-
	Total	enhancement	Rs.1,87,290/-

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2060 MFA No. 201511 of 2022

¶57

Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.

¶58

Therefore, the following;

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,87,290/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶62

(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶63

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶64

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶65

SMP

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: AK

Sanjeevkumar v. the Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevkumar v. the Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shahida Begum Vs Sri Balaram

M/S Bangalore Club Vs H N Ramchandra

Mahantesh Vs Santosh and Anr.

The Divisional Manager Vs Boramma and Anr.

Vithal Vs Mr. Irshad and Ors.

Ambadas S/O Sampatrao Sindhe @ Peerojirao Sindhe Vs Chand Pasha and Anr.