Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 74 (KAR)

Halashi v. H. S. Chikkanna

2001-01-18

T.N.VALLINAYAGAM

body2001
JUDGMENT T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The appellant-Petitioner is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted to him by the Tribunal in MVC 977 of 1992. 2. The accident occurred on 23.6.1992 at 11.10 a.m. between motor cycle and lorry bearing registration No. CAW 3281 and the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was treated in the District Hospital Chitradurga. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- under three heads, namely, Rs. 30,000/- for medical expenses; loss of income of Rs. 1,50,000/-; and pain and suffering and disability at Rs. 70,000/-. The Tribunal has chosen to grant a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for future medical expenses; Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred by the Petitioner for his relatives to attend the hospital; Rs. 20,000/- for disability and Rs. 42,000/- towards injuries. 3. The question of negligence having been found on the lorry driver and such a finding is not canvassed here as the same has become final. We are concerned with the claim now made by the appellant before this Court. 4. It is seen from the claim petition that the damages claimed under three heads mentioned supra, but the Tribunal which decided the issues did not consider the claim made in the petition and has gone on tangent. In my opinion, when a sum of Rs. 30,000/- alone is claimed, how the Tribunal could give Rs. 60,000/- is not explained. In fact the Tribunal has observed while granting compensation in respect of disability that "some what based upon some conjectures and surmises, but it is inevitable in such a case." Probably he has applied the same principle in respect of medical expenses which is said to have been really incurred. There is no clear finding rendered by the Tribunal explaining the nexus between the claim made under the petition and the grant made. Admittedly, there is no amendment of the petition till now. The learned Counsel for the appellant however submitted that under column 20(1) the form prescribed for filing a claim; the claim has to simply mention the total amount without giving particulars and the particulars given only as a guiding factor. But in the case I find that in Col. 21, Rs. 2,50,000/- is made under all heads of damages. The learned Counsel for the appellant however submitted that under column 20(1) the form prescribed for filing a claim; the claim has to simply mention the total amount without giving particulars and the particulars given only as a guiding factor. But in the case I find that in Col. 21, Rs. 2,50,000/- is made under all heads of damages. In fact towards the end of para 3 of the petition, the appellant himself mentioned "Hence the Petitioner claims the compensation under the following heads:" i) Medical expenses 30,000.00 ii) Loss of income 1,50,000.00 iii) Pain, suffering, disability 70,000.00 2,50,000.00 The submission appears to be therefore contradictory. It is one thing to say that the total compensation claimed and it is for the Tribunal to distribute under different heads and not for the appellant. The appellant who has come before the Court and claimed under single head any amount of damages and it is for the Court to distribute the same under different heads notwithstanding the fact that there is no pleadings at all in the petition. 5. No doubt, a form is prescribed, but the rule of pleadings cannot be completely taken away and there cannot be total demolition of the pleadings simply because the compensation has claimed as well. In particular, I find that there is a specific allegation in the petition at para 3 that "after the accident the appellant was got admitted to the District Hospital Chitradurga, there he took treatment for one day as inpatient and again he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital Davangere through a hired car and thereby incurred Rs. 400/- towards the car hire and there he took treatment as inpatient and still under treatment and thereby incurred Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses." It is not the case of the Petitioner that on the date when the claim petition was filed, he was not having medical bills. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- is claimed. How the amount could be doubled after filing of the petition and how such a claim be admitted by the Tribunal pauses one's comprehension. In think that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence, the claim cannot be disbelieved by the Tribunal. The irresistible inference has to be that the bills cannot be straightaway believed in the absence of any evidence to that effect. 6. In think that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence, the claim cannot be disbelieved by the Tribunal. The irresistible inference has to be that the bills cannot be straightaway believed in the absence of any evidence to that effect. 6. On the question of loss of income, a s sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is claimed. The Petitioner claims to be doing avocation of agriculture and also as Clerk. How both the avocation go together is understandable. There is no clear explanation as to how he is earning from agriculture and how much he is earning as a clerk. Though he would say in col. 6 that he is earning Rs. 2,000 from agriculture and Rs. 600/- per month as salary, there is no proper evidence nor an income certificate is produced before this Court. Here again the imagination of the Tribunal has led to a play a part without any reference made in Col. 3, the Tribunal has taken Rs. 30/- per day as income as Hamali in Siddeshwar Supari Traders. It was nobody's case that he was working as a Hamali. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the memorandum of grounds and in the cause title filed in the MFA that the claimant is a Clerk. When he claims only Rs. 600/- from Siddeshwar Supari Traders, how the Tribunal can fix Rs. 30/- per day from Siddeshwar Traders is equally ununderstandable. Probably the Tribunal thought that it can do panchayath system of justice and not administration of justice according to law and the rules and regulations provided for conducting the cases before the Tribunal. 7. So far as the claim towards treatment is concerned, the claimant said to have spent Rs. One Lakh for medical and other expenses. In the evidence, he stated that he spent Rs. 58,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. On the other hand, the claim in the completely different, wherein he has claimed Rs. 30,000/- not only in col. 13 but also in para 3 of the claim petition. When the claimant himself is specific about the expenses of Rs. 30,000/- only, how the Court can give more than what was asked for, is ununderstandable. 8. Coming to the income, he claims that he was earning the income of Rs. 50,000/- annually from agriculture. On the other hand, his claim is only Rs. When the claimant himself is specific about the expenses of Rs. 30,000/- only, how the Court can give more than what was asked for, is ununderstandable. 8. Coming to the income, he claims that he was earning the income of Rs. 50,000/- annually from agriculture. On the other hand, his claim is only Rs. 2,000/- per month from agriculture in Col. 6 of the petition. That means he only gets Rs. 24,000/-, even according to him; whereas his claim is fabulously made at Rs. 50,000/-. It appears that it is the imagination of the claimant that he can make any claim whatsoever with reference to the pleadings or evidence and ultimately leaving to the mercy of the Court to award anything the Court may feel reasonable. 9. So far as grant of Rs. 42,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained, I feel the same is reasonable taking into consideration the views of the various High Courts in respect of such injuries, which ranges from Rs. 25,000 to 50,000/-. Therefore, the grant of Rs. 42,000/- is confirmed. So also the grant of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. 10. The specific case of the appellant is that he was staying in the hospital for one day as inpatient. He never pleaded that he had engaged his relations to come to his help or aid. There is also no claim for any amount towards such expenses said to have been incurred by him, while the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/-. It is not known under what head such amount could be granted. On the question of disability, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 20,000/- and I confirm the same. So except confirming the figure as above, in respect of other grant, I find that there is variation between the pleadings and the grant, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal to consider the grant made so there being need to revise the figure. 11. In this view, while confirming certain amount mentioned above, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider afresh the finding in the light of the evidence available. It is open to the parties either to amend the pleadings or to adduce additional evidence, if they so choose. The appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Tribunal. 12. In this view, while confirming certain amount mentioned above, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider afresh the finding in the light of the evidence available. It is open to the parties either to amend the pleadings or to adduce additional evidence, if they so choose. The appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Tribunal. 12. If the appellant has already drawn any excess money, it shall be deposited back in the Court and keep in deposit till the disposal of the case. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipts of the records. It is open to the Respondents to enforce such deposit back to the Court through due process of law.