Channappa vs The Divisional Controller NEKRTC <BR> The Divisional Controller Vs Channappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Shri Shivashankar H Manur takes notice for respondent in MFA No. 30632/2010 and Shri Babu H Metagudda takes notice for respondent in MFA No. 31828/2010.

These appeals coming on for admission and are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The only question that would arise in these respective appeals is whether the appellants deserves to be awarded enhanced compensation and whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the respondent-North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation.

The facts leading to the case are on 09.07.2008 at about 8.30 PM when the appellant in MFA No. 30632/2010 was proceeding on his bicycle towards his land at Motoli, Afzalpur taluk, the driver of the bus belonging to respondent-Corporation who is the appellant in connected appeal in MFA No. 31828/2010 bearing Registration No. KA-32-F-1360 was said to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the bicycle of fee claimant, as a result of which, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of his body. He was admitted to hospital and later on he had to be shifted to another hospital for better treatment at Solapur He was an inpatient from 10.07.2008 to 20.07.2008. He was engaged in supervision of agriculture and he also said to be vending milk and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. It was claimed by injured appellant that he suffered permanent disability and as a result of which he could not carry on his normal duties as before and hence was before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence tendered, has held that the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs. 1,100/- towards loss of earning during laid up period, Rs. 4,825/- towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and conveyance, Rs. 41,725/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 64,800/- towards loss of future earning Rs. 64,800/-. Therefore a total compensation of Rs. 1,37,450/- has been awarded as against which the present appeal is filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on several grounds.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. On the other hand the appeal in MFA No. 31828/2010 is preferred by the Corporation to contend that there is candid admission by the injured claimant to the effect that he continues to perform agricultural operations and he also continues to do his milk vending business and hence he is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

At the outset, the claim of the Corporation that the claimant has admitted that he continues to work as before and is not entitled to compensation is an unfair and unjust contention. Occurrence of accident is not denied, in that he has suffered serious injuries and disability. If the claimant maintains to perform his duties with difficulties, it would not enable the Corporation to deny its liability. Therefore, it would have to be considered whether the compensation awarded to the injured claimant by the Tribunal was just and fair.

Having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant and the fact that he was an inpatient for a long time in two hospitals, on the face of it, demonstrates that the appellant had suffered much pain and suffering hence the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering is paltry and unjust. The appellant is straight way entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities of life which is also paltry and requires to be enhanced. Thus, the claimant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,100/- towards loss of income during laid up period which is paltry amount. The claimant was an inpatient for several days and would have gone through further recuperation whereby he would not have been able to work. The award of Rs. 1,100/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period is paltry. Since he was granted 1,100/- by the Tribunal he is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 13,900/-. The appellant has been granted a sum of Rs. 4,825/- towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and conveyance. This amount is certainly on the lower side and the appellant is entitled to a partial enhancement. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards this head of compensation is just and reasonable. Therefore, after deducting Rs. 4,825/- the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 2,175/- as additional compensation under this head. The monthly income of the appellant is taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month and on that basis that he was earning Rs. 36,000/- annually, adopting the multiplier of ''18'' less 10%, a sum of Rs. 64,800/- is granted whereas the appellant was actually earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. However given the year of the accident income of Rs. 4,500/- per month would be nominal and given the disability suffered by the appellant, if Rs. 4,500/- is adopted as'' the monthly income of the appellant and going by the disability assessed at 25%, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,78,200/-. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,39,275/- in all, which shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. MFA No. 30632/2010 is allowed in terms as above. MFA No. 31828/2010 filed by the Corporation stands dismissed.