Rangamma vs Managing Director & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final

disposal.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.1056/2018 dated 27.08.2019 by the I

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT No.IV, at Chitradurga ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant/claimant has sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 12.09.2018 at

about 11:30 a.m, near KSRTC., bus stand, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC., Bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-1723 by

its driver.

The claim of the claimant before the Tribunal is that she was working as vegetable vendor. Due to the accident she had sustained physical disability

and left foot was amputated as a result, she is unable to do any job.

The claimant in support of her claim, she examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12 and also examined the

Doctor as P.W.2. The respondent- Insurance Company though marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R2 and examined one witness as RW.1, the

only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has failed to award the just and reasonable compensation and

committed an error in taking the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and the accident was of the year 2018. The learned counsel also would vehemently

contend that though the Doctor - P.W.2 assessed the disability to the tune of 50%, but the Tribunal has taken 17% as functional disability. Hence, it

requires an interference of this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the Doctor, who has been examined before the Tribunal

is not the treated Doctor and the assessment made by the Tribunal as 50% disability to the lower limb is erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for

the respondents would vehemently contend that in order to prove the fact that the claimant was doing vegetable vending business; no document was

placed before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal rightly taken the income as Rs.6,000/- per month and also applied the relevant multiplier of 11. Hence,

it does not require any interference of this Court.

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the point that would

arise for consideration of this Court is :-

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?

Having perused the material both oral and documentary evidence and also the discussion made in paragraph No.11 of the Tribunal, taken note of

the nature of injury i.e., Crush injury left foot till supra mallelour region, degloving injury, phalanges of great toe formed to be fractured, tendon of

dorsum of foot exposed, sole of foot complete slim loss and also discussed the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, who assessed the disability and came to the

conclusion that the foot of the claimant was amputated and the disability would be 50% to the left lower limb, however, assessed the disability to the

whole body as 17%.

Having perused the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the accident was taken place in the year 2018 and the Tribunal committed

an error in taking Rs.6,000/- as notional monthly income. If the accident is of the year 2018, as in the absence of no proof of income, it would be

Rs.12,500/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of Rs.6,000/- per month.

With regard to disability is concerned, I do not find any merit in taking the higher percentage of disability and the Tribunal has taken 1/3rd in

respect of the disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier 11 taking into note of her age as 55 years. Hence, it requires

re-visiting the quantum of compensation. It has to be noted that the Tribunal though assessed the future loss of income but not awarded the

compensation on the other heads individually but awarded globally. Hence, the same has to be formulated on different heads.

Taking into note of the nature of injury and amputation, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'pain and sufferings'.

The injured was in the hospital for a period of 26 days and the medical expenses of Rs.1,490/- was spent. The Tribunal considered the same and it

does not require any interference with regard to the medical expenses is concerned. However, the Court has to take note of the nature of the injuries

suffered and the loss of income for a period of four months i.e., 12500 x 4 = 50,000/- has to be awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

Hence, Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on the head of 'loss of amenities' as the disability was to the extent of 17% to the whole body. Hence, it

is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/-under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

The Tribunal was not awarded any amount towards 'Food and Nourishment' as the injured was in the hospital for a period of 26 days. Hence, it is

appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/-towards 'Food and Nourishment'.

Having taken the income as Rs.12,500/- per month and by applying the relevant multiplier '11' since she was aged about 55 years with 17%

disability, the 'future loss of income' comes to Rs.2,80,500/- (12500x12x11x17/100).

In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,51,990/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum, the same has to be reduced to 6% per annum due to the present bank

rate of interest.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.1056/2018 dated 27.08.2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT No.IV,

at Chitradurga is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,51,990/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit as

against Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.

(iii) The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today.

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.