AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 1,472 wordsN.K. Patil
These two appeals respectively by the Corporation and the claimant are directed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 15th September 2008, passed in M.V.C. No. 2690/2007, by the 14th Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore (SCCH-10), (for short, ''Tribunal''), awarding compensation of Rs. 3,75,450/- to the claimant, as against his claim for Rs. 07.00 lakhs.
While the Corporation has filed the appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and is therefore liable to be reduced substantially, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, the claimant has filed the appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and needs enhancement.
The facts in brief are that, the claimant claims to be aged about 25 years, working as loader on luggage Bajaj JC bearing No. KA-07/6700, and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 9:45 A.M., on 14-03-2007, when the claimant was travelling as a loader on Luggage Bajaj JC bearing No. KA-07.6700, near Nelamachanahalli, Chintamani Taluk, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of a KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-01/F-7279, due to which, he fell down and sustained multiple fracture and grievous injuries as per the wound certificate. Immediately he was shifted to Hospital, where he took treatment as in patient for a period of twelve days. It is the case of the claimant that he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15th September, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,75,450/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of complete realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the Corporation also has filed the appeal, seeking reduction of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant.
I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandums of appeal filed by both Corporation and the claimant and heard the learned counsel for Corporation and claimant, for considerable length of time.
Shri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for Corporation submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding higher compensation towards loss of future income and also further erred in separately awarding Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, which is impermissible in injury cases. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded towards injury, pain and sufferings is also on the higher side and is liable to be reduced substantially.
Smt. B.H. Sunitha, appealing for Shri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel appearing for claimant, submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the claimant at only Rs. 3,500/- per month, for the reason that the injured claimant is a skilled labourer and the accident has occurred during 2007.
Therefore, reasonable income may be assessed and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of income during treatment period, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, future medical expenses, and other heads and the impugned and judgment and award may be modified accordingly.
After hearing learned counsel for both the Corporation and the claimant and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before me, the only point that arise for consideration in these two appeals is.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of accident and the resultant, injuries sustained by claimant are not in dispute. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, injury pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment period, future medical expenses etc. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. However, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding compensation towards loss of expectation of life in injury cases. But the compensation awarded undo" the said head may be added towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness.
Further, so far as the compensation awarded towards loss of future income is concerned, the same is on the higher side and needs to be re-determined. The monthly income assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2007. The injured claimant was working as a loader and un-loader. To do the said work, one has to be young and energetic and also strong enough to hold and carry heavy weight. It is not possible for ordinary persons to do the said job. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, I re-assess the monthly income of the injured claimant at Rs. 4,000/-. The injured claimant had suffered pain in right lower limb, difficulty in standing for long time, squatting, and climbing stairs," antalgic gait, wasting and weakness of right lower limb, tenderness and deformity of right ankle with joint line tenderness of right ankle joint, operated scare measuring 8 inches in right ankle and restriction of joint movements of light ankle joint by 10 degrees (plantar flexion) and dorsi flexion totally. The radiological examination showed mal-united fracture of medial malleolus (right) and mal united fracture talus(right) with cancellous malleolar screws and tension band wire in situ with secondary osteo arthritis of right ankle joint. The Doctor has assessed permanent physical disability at 36% in relation to right lower limb and 18% in relation to whole body. But, the Tribunal grossly erred in re-assessing the whole body disability at 25% for calculating loss of future income. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, and the evidence of the Doctor regarding disability, I accept the whole body disability assessed by Doctor at 18% for re-determining compensation towards loss of future income. The claimant, being aged about 25 years, at the time of accident, has to pull on the life with this disability for the rest of his life and he cannot perform his duties as he was doing before. Further, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, ), the proper multiplier applicable having regard to the age of the claimant, being 25 years is, ''18'' Accordingly, taking into consideration all the above aspects, I re-determine compensation towards loss of future earnings at Rs. 1,55,520/- towards loss of future income, taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/- adopting multiplier of ''18'' and accepting whole body disability at 18% as assessed by Doctor, as against Rs. 1,78,500/- awarded by Tribunal, taking the monthly income as Rs. 3,500/-, adopting multiplier of ''17'' and whole body disability at 25%.
Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest at 8% per annum, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for Corporation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the latest judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, I modify the interest from 8% to 7% per annum.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by claimant is dismissed as devoid of merits and the appeal filed by Corporation is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th September 2008, passed in M.V.C. No. 2690/2007 by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore (SCCH-10), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,52,470/- as against Rs. 3.75,450/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 7% per annum, as against 8% awarded by Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization, thereby reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs. 22,980/-.
The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by the Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court.
The amount in deposit by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.