Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 105 (KAR)

MALLAPPA v. YAMANAYYA

2000-02-04

KUMAR RAJARATNAM

body2000
KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE claimantappellant being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted to him in m. V. C. No. 174 of 1997 by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur, has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE appellant was travelling in a maxicab on 12. 9. 1996. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle insured with the respondent No. 2 the appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries. The appellant was shifted to the government Hospital, Kustagi and thereafter shifted to K. M. C. Hospital, Hubli for better treatment. The appellant was an patient for 21/2 months and had undergone treatment. The appellant claimed to be a driver earning about Rs. 2,500 per month and sought for compensation under different heads to the extent of Rs. 2,20,000. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000 was awarded towards medical expenses, loss of amenities was determined at Rs. 10,000 and rs. 5,000 was awarded towards loss of earnings during the period when the appellant was confined to bed; in all a total compensation of Rs. 35,000 was awarded. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insubmitted that as a result of the accident there was shortening of the leg by 3". It was further submitted that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the award of compensation was adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 6 ) A perusal of the accident register and the evidence of the appellant, PW 2, clearly indicates that there was mal-union of fracture of neck of femur of right side. There was disability of nearly 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the right lower limb. The appellant was advised by the doctors to reconstruct and osteotomy of the right hip joint. The injury certificate, Exh. P-5, indicates that there was contusion on the right side of the hip 3 cm. x 5 cm. The injury certificate indicates that there was trochanteric fracture of the right hip. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the finding by the Tribunal that it was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver that the accident occurred and as a result of which the appellant was injured. x 5 cm. The injury certificate indicates that there was trochanteric fracture of the right hip. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the finding by the Tribunal that it was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver that the accident occurred and as a result of which the appellant was injured. I affirm the finding of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC ). That was a case where there was shortening of the leg of the appellant and the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 4,58,000. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that each case depends on the facts of that case. In the case before the Supreme Court it was clearly established that the claimant was an academic student and, therefore, there is no direct comparison with the judgment of the Apex court with the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the insurance company, however, submitted that only a marginal increase may be permissible in accordance with law. ( 10 ) THE judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot have much application for the facts in this case. Firstly, the claimant before the Supreme court was a student with a bright future. Secondly, the materials produced before the Tribunal in this case do not indicate that the appellant was a driver. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court will have some bearing on this case. The loss of amenities was determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000. 1 feel that it would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs. 25,000. The pain and suffering was determined at rs. 15,000. Rs. 30,000 would be the just and equitable compensation on this head. The medical expenses was determined at rs. 5,000. That will have to be enhanced at Rs. 10,000. Loss of earning during the period the appellant was bedridden, was determined at Rs. 5,000. That will have to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000. The future loss of earning has not been determined by the tribunal. I determine the future loss of earning at Rs. 75,000 taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 10,000. Loss of earning during the period the appellant was bedridden, was determined at Rs. 5,000. That will have to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000. The future loss of earning has not been determined by the tribunal. I determine the future loss of earning at Rs. 75,000 taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court. ( 11 ) IN all, there will be a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The balance of the enhanced amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal with interest at 9 per cent per annum within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .