Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. vs G. Giriraju and Another

N.K. Patil, J.—The appeal by the Corporation and Cross Objection by the claimant are directed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 8.9.2008 passed in MVC No. 1364/2007 by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), (for short Tribunal) on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and, therefore, it is liable to be reduced as contended by the Corporation and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and, therefore, it requires enhancement as contended by the claimant. The brief facts of the case are, on 6.6.2003 at about 6.45 p.m. the claimant was travelling in BMTC bus bearing No. KA.01.F.2111 from Corporation Bus Stop on Kalinga Rao Road and when she boarded the bus at Corporation Bus Stop the driver suddenly and immediately started the bus in negligent manner, as a result, she was thrown out of the bus and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Rajashekhar Hospital, where she look treatment as in patient and, thereafter, she has taken bed rest and follow up treatment.

It is the further case of the claimant that, she spent considerable amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. On account of the injuries sustained by claimant, she sustained permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 12% to the right hand and at 5% to the whole body. Therefore, claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by the injured, has allowed the said claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 56,600 with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal the Corporation has filed an appeal for reduction of compensation and the claimant has filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

I have heard learned Counsel for Corporation and learned Counsel for claimant and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

It is the specific case of the Corporation that the Tribunal has miserably failed to note that the alleged date of accident is 6.6.2003 and the alleged complaint was given on 4.7.2003 i.e. nearly one month after the date of accident. Further it is contended that, when the claimant has allegedly taken treatment as out-patient there was no reason for giving the complaint after one month of the accident and the claim petition is filed nearly after four years after the accident which shows that claimant has manipulated the entire record in order to file a claim petition for compensation. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that in the alleged FIR, claimant has not given the registration number of BMTC bus and the FIR is registered against the BMTC bus stating that registration number of the bus is not known and there is no evidence of IO of the Police Department to establish that the said bus is involved in the accident. Further it is specifically contended that the said bus is not involved in the accident and when the involvement of the bus in the accident is denied, the claimant except examining herself has not examined any other independent eye-witnesses to prove the alleged involvement of the bus in the accident. Further, learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the compensation of Rs. 56,600 awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% p.a. is on higher side and it needs to be reduced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

Per contra, learned Counsel for Cross Objector-claimant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities, pain and sufferings is on lower side and, therefore, it is liable to be enhanced by awarding just and reasonable compensation on the ground that claimant has sustained injuries in the accident. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing just and reasonable compensation.

After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal including the materials available on file, it emerges that the occurrence of the accident mid resultant injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and there is a delay in filing the complaint. The Tribunal is justified in observing that on that ground alone the claim petition cannot be dismissed and the Court has to go in detail on the records and evidence of the claimant. Apart from that there are wound certificate at Ex. P5 and evidence of Doctor at PW2 to believe that claimant has sustained injuries in road accident on 6.6.2003 and taken treatment at Rajashekhar Hospital, Bangalore. Further, the Tribunal has observed that there is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on file on behalf of claimant, has opined that claimant has proved that on 6.6.2003 she was passenger in bus bearing No. KA.0A.F.2111 by 6.45. p.m. near Corporation Bus Stop, while she was boarding the bus, its driver had acted in rash and negligent manner as a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. She has sustained fracture of right wrist bone which is comminuted fracture as per Ex. P5 and the PW2 Doctor has assessed the permanent disability to the right hand at 12% and to the whole body at 5% and further opined that nay type of bone fracture causes permanent handicap to that part. Therefore, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by her, is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 25,000 towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1,600 towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards incidental expenses and in all Rs. 56,600 which is just and proper and, therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

However, the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit which is on higher side and is liable to be reduced since the accident had occurred in 2003. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the rate of interest from 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit to meet the ends of justice.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

The impugned judgment and award dated 8.9.2008 passed in MVC No. 1364/2007 by the VII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), is hereby modified, reducing interest from. 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a., on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Claims Tribunal immediately.