Skip to content


The Divisional Controller, Hubli Vs. Nelhal Sharnappa and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka Gulbarga High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No.30243 of 2008 [MV]
Judge
AppellantThe Divisional Controller, Hubli
RespondentNelhal Sharnappa and Another
Excerpt:
.....was permanent disability and therefore, a claim was made for compensation towards loss of income, medical expenses, pain, suffering mental agony, etc. the injured was examined as p.w.1 and the doctor, who assessed the disability is examined as p.w.2. exs.p1 to 53 are the documents admitted in their evidence. on behalf of the respondents, r.w.1 was examined and no document was marked in his evidence. the tribunal after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, granted a sum of rs.7,72,955-00 with interest at 6% p.a. aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 3. i have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 4. the point that arises for my consideration is; whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side? if so, what is the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act, praying to allow the appeal and consequently to set aside the Judgment and Award dated 26.05.2008 passed by the learned Addl. MACT at Raichur in MVC No.178/2005.)

1. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

2. The facts reveal that on 28.02.2005, the 1st respondent herein, a District Judge, was proceeding in the bus bearing reg. No.KA-25/F-1681 and at 00.30 hours, the driver lost the control over the vehicle and the bus turtled. As a result, the 1st respondent herein suffered fracture of the left arm and he took treatment at Bangalore and in different other hospitals. There was permanent disability and therefore, a claim was made for compensation towards loss of income, medical expenses, pain, suffering mental agony, etc. The injured was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor, who assessed the disability is examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to 53 are the documents admitted in their evidence. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked in his evidence.

The Tribunal after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, granted a sum of Rs.7,72,955-00 with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

4. The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side? If so, what is the just and reasonable compensation?

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant is a Government servant and has been continued in his services after the accident. He submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of future income is improper and erroneous. It is also his submission that the compensation on the other heads is on the higher side and needs reduction.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. and therefore, it is his contention that even if the loss of future earnings is to be annuled, considering the reasonable compensation payable on the other heads, the total amount awarded is reasonable. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this appeal.

6. Ex.P5 is the injury certificate and Ex.P6 is the case sheet. These 2 documents would reveal that there is a fracture of shaft of left humorous with wrist drop. P.W.2 is the doctor, who assessed the disability and issued the certificate-Ex.P52. In his opinion, there is permanent disability to an accident of 13% of the whole body and the injured cannot lift heavy objects by his left hand because of the disability he suffered.

7. It is not in dispute that the injured is serving as a District Judge and has been continued in the service even after the accident. Therefore, there is no question of granting any compensation towards loss of future income. Anyhow, the injured is entitled to a reasonable compensation on other heads.

8. The injured is not entitled to the future loss of income and therefore, for his sufferings all along the life with the permanent disability, a sum of Rs.30,000-00 paid by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Taking into consideration the nature of the work, the inconvenience that he faced and also suffering with the disability, I think it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.50,000-00 for pain, suffering and mental agony.

9. Exs.P7 to 33 are the medical bills exceeding Rs.67,000-00. Taking into consideration the bills produced, a sum of Rs.70,000-00 is payable towards the medical expenses incurred by the injured for the treatment that he has taken.

10. No compensation has been awarded for food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, and only a sum of Rs.3,000-00 has been paid by the Tribunal, which has been added to the medical expenses incurred. The injured was in the hospital for 5 days. At the time of the accident, he was serving in Bidar. He has taken treatment in Bangalore. He has to pay independently towards food and other expenses whenever goes for treatment to Bangalore and his evidence reveals that on many occasions, he has traveled to Bangalore for the purpose of treatment. He has to incur expenses for transport, conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges. Prior to the claim petition, for his treatment he had to visit Bangalore on many occasions and therefore, taking into consideration, the expenses to be incurred for the journey, conveyance, etc., I think it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.50,000-00 on this head.

11. The injured is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of future earnings as he is continued in service and therefore, the loss of amenities will have to be more. With the permanent disability at 13% of the whole body, the injured will face numerous problems and inconvenience and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I think it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.75,000-00 towards loss of amenities.

12. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.35,326-00 towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Reasonable time is required for healing of the fracture and on each of the occasions, to get medical check-up, the injured has to travel to different places and in this context, he has to apply for leave. Only a sum of Rs.35,326-00 has been paid on the basis of the salary certificate-Ex.P53, wherein he was getting a salary of Rs.28,641-00 as monthly salary. The evidence discloses that even after treatment as an indoor patient, the injured has gone for medical check-up on different occasions and it is evident that implants were inserted. The evidence discloses that on many occasions, he has to go to Bangalore and I think in the aforesaid circumstances, salary of 2 months would be just and proper. Taking into consideration the period of leave that he has to seek on different occasions whenever he visits the hospital, a sum of Rs.70,000-000 would be just and proper towards loss of income. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 towards future medical expenses as opined by the doctor. No grounds are made out to interfere with. Thereby the injured is entitled to the compensation as under:

Pain, suffering and mentalRs.50,000-00 agony.
Medical expenses.Rs.70,000-00
Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.60, 000-00
Loss of amenities.75,000-00
Future medical expenses.1,00,000-00
Loss of income during the period of treatment.70,000-00
Total4,25,000-00
 
The Tribunal though has granted a sum of Rs.5,36,159-00 towards future loss of income, considering reasonable compensation to the injured on the aforesaid heads, the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation more than the sum calculated above. To this extent, the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal will have to be modified. Hence, I answer the point in affirmative.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal are modified. The 1st respondent herein is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,25,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //