Ravindra Reddy and Others vs Narasimhamurthy and Others

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.

These appeals are by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

As all these appeals are arising out of a common road traffic accident, they are heard together and disposed of finally by this common Judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

As there is no dispute regarding death of two persons and injuries sustained by three persons in the road traffic accident that occurred on 15.11.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing Registration No. KA-08/3663 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is:

"Whether compensation awarded in each claim petition is just and reasonable or does it call for interference?"

MFA No. 2369/2011 (MVC No. 310/2009):

The injured claimant in this appeal is one Sri. Ravindra Reddy, aged about 36 years. As per Ex. P. 9/wound certificate issued by Mallya Hospital, the claimant has sustained grievous injury to head as well as contusion over right lung, abrasion over forehead, right eye, right knee, cut injury over right lumbar abdomen, right lung contusion, fracture of left scapula, bilateral lower rib fractures, liver laceration, left abdomen haematoma and other injuries. He was immediately taken to Govt. Hospital, Nelamangala, provided first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS and from there, he was shifted to Vydehi Hospital and Victoria hospital. He was kept in ICU and he was again shifted to Mallya Hospital and it is a case of total parapelgia.

Considering nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

As Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on medical bills produced by the claimants, the same is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.

He was treated as in-patient for 21 days on different occasions at different hospitals. Considering the same, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses, conveyance, attendant and nourishment charges.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the disability stated by the doctor and an amount of unhappiness and discomfort the claimant has to undergo in his future life, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 30,000/-.

In the absence of proof of income, considering the age of the claimant as 34 years, year of accident as 2008 and avocation as Coolie, his income is assessed at Rs. 4,500/- p.m., as against Rs. 3,000/- p.m., taken by the Tribunal. As already stated above, he has suffered disability of 100%. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is 16. Thus, loss of income works out to Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 8,64,000/- as against Rs. 5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

It is to be noted that the claimant having suffered parapelgia is confined to wheel-chair and he needs to be looked after by a permanent attendant. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and is awarded towards attendant charges and future medical expenses.

Thus, he is entitled for the following compensation:

Thus, he is entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 8,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

MFA No. 2370/2011 (MVC No. 507/2009)

It is a case of death of one Thimmarayareddy, aged about 56 years. Claim petition is filed by his wife, children and parents. Claimants, in support of their contentions that deceased by working as a Class-I Electrical Contractor, was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m., and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m., by doing Agriculture, have produced Contractor''s licence at Ex. P. 28, Bank statements at Exs. P. 31, 32 and 46. Exs. P. 44 and 45, letters issued by Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), BESCOM would show that he had executed works for BESCOM and received payment thereof. Exs. P. 30 and 29/Patta and RTC have been produced to show that the deceased was an Agriculturist. Considering the age of deceased as 56 years, year of accident as November 2008 and avocation as an Electrical Contractor and Agriculturist, his income can be easily assessed at Rs. 7,000/- p.m., as against Rs. 4,000/- p.m., assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering Claimant No. 2 being a married daughter and Claimant No. 3 being a major son, are not dependent legal heirs of deceased and Claimant Nos. 4 and 5 are unmarried daughter and Claimants 6 and 7 are aged parents of deceased and they are dependant legal heirs of deceased is justified in deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his living expenses and taking 3/4th of his income as his contribution towards family. The multiplier of 9 applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased who was 56 years old at the relevant point of time is sound and proper. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,250/- x 12 x 9 = Rs. 5,67,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

A sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium in respect of 1st claimant and Rs. 1,05,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection in respect of claimants 2 to 7 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- each and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, in all Rs. 1,35,000/- is awarded towards various conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation as under:

Thus, the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,98,000/- * with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

MFA No. 2371/2011 (MVC No. 508/2009)

It is a case of death of one Sri. Shankara @ Shankarappa, aged about 25 years. The Claim petition is filed by his wife, parents and minor child. Claimants, in support of their contentions that deceased, by working as a Coolie under the Electrical Contractor Thimmarayareddy, who also died in the said accident, was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m., except examining one of the claimants have not adduced any other evidence regarding avocation and income of deceased. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 25 years, year of accident as 2008 and avocation as a Coolie, income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. 1/3rd of the income of deceased deducted by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses and multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal based on the age of 29, is just and proper. Thus, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 7,20,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 4,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Taking into consideration the fact that the 1st Claimant has lost her husband at her very young age, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. Similarly, 4th Claimant has lost her father at her tender age and therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards loss of her love and affection and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded to claimants 2 and 3 who are parents of deceased towards loss of their love and affection. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards loss of estate is not interfered with and in all, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- is awarded under conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled for following compensation:

Thus, the Claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 3,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

MFA No. 2444/2011 (MVC No. 283/2009)

The injured claimant in this appeal is one Krishnappa, aged about 46 years. As per Ex. P. 14/wound certificate, he had sustained fracture of right iliac bone and tenderness over the lower back and hip and other multiple injuries. He was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital on 16.11.2008 and was discharged on 29.11.2008. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. As Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on medical bills produced, there is no scope for enhancement. He was treated as in-patient for 13 days in Sanjay Gandhi hospital. Hence, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Considering his age as 46 years, year of accident, i.e., November 2008 and avocation as a Coolie under Electrical Contractor, viz., Thimmarayareddy, his income is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Considering the nature of injuries, he required rest at least for a period of three months and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and an amount of unhappiness and discomfort the claimant has to undergo in his future life, Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is just and proper.

The claimant''s income is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal is justified in taking the disability caused to the whole body at 10%. The Multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal is proper. Loss of future income works out to Rs. 5,000/- x 10% x 12 x13 = Rs. 78,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 38,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, he is entitled for compensation as under:

Thus, he is entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 69,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

MFA No. 2446/2011 (MVC No. 309/...

Injured claimant is one Govindappa, aged about 42 years. As per wound certificate, he had sustained degloving injury of left leg and right leg, Type-III ''C'' and compound fracture of both bones of right leg with crush injury to right leg, fracture of right femur. He underwent knee amputation of right lower limb, debridement and SSG was done for left lower limb.

Considering the fact that right leg of the claimant above knee was amputated, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on medical bills produced, there is no scope for enhancement. He was treated as in-patient for 51 days in a private hospital. Considering the duration of treatment as inpatient, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.

He claims to have been working as a Coolie under an Electrical Contractor, viz., Thimmarayareddy who also died in the same accident. Considering the same, his income is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during laid up period.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of unhappiness and discomfort he has to undergo in his future life, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

The claimant''s income is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Multiplier applicable to his age group is 14. Doctor has assessed the disability caused to whole body at 85%. The Tribunal, considering that his right leg was amputated above knee and he was confined to wheel-chair and had also sustained injury to left leg, is justified in taking functional disability at 100% as against 85% disability stated by the doctor to whole body. Thus, loss of future income would work out to Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 8,40,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses and cost of wheel-chair. Thus, he is entitled for compensation as follows:

Thus, he is entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 5,86,000/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

There is no merit in the contention of the insurer that the Court cannot award more compensation than what has been claimed in the claim petition as Courts are required to award just and reasonable compensation notwithstanding the amount claimed in the claim petitions.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated herein above.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In MFA Nos. 2369/2011, 2444/2011 and 2446/2011, out of the enhanced compensation, 75% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in the name of respective injured claimants in any nationalized or scheduled Bank for a period of three years with a right of option to withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in their favour.

The Tribunal while releasing 25% of the amount, is also directed to issue F.D. slip to the claimants so that they can withdraw F.D. amount on its maturity. The Bank/Post Office in which amount is kept in F.D. is also directed to release F.D. amount on maturity without insisting further orders from the Court.

In MFA Nos. 2370/2011 and 2371/2011, the apportionment, deposit and release of additional compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be done in the ratio mentioned in the awards of the Tribunal.

No order as to costs.

*Corrected vide chamber order dt. 28.04.15