Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 737 (KAR)

N. Sunilkumar v. B. R. Nagaraju

2017-04-12

B.MANOHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 7.5.2011 made in MVC No. 78/2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nanjanagudu (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 28.7.2008, while he was proceeding in a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-09/F-3899 from Chamarajanagar to Nanjanagudu, near Chinnadagudi Village at about 10.30 a.m. the driver of a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-20/3578 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Due to that, the claimant who was an inmate of the bus sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Nanjanagudu, thereafter he took treatment in K.R. Hospital at Mysuru and also at JSS hospital at Mysuru. In the accident, the claimant has sustained loss of five teeth and other injuries to body. He has spent huge money for his treatment. In view of the injuries sustained, he lost educational prospects, he has also failed in 3rd, 4th and 5th semester. The accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of driver of the offending lorry which was insured with the 3rd respondent. Hence sought for compensation of Rs. 17,20,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Trial Court, though the owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 entered appearance, however, Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed written statement. 4. After trial, the Trial Court held that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, the accident had occurred. The claimant being the inmate of the KSRTC bus has sustained injuries and he is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained loss of five teeth, he has undergone surgery and took treatment as inpatient for a period of 4 days. Root canal has been made for the purpose of installing artificial tooth. The Trial Court taking into consideration the notional income of Rs. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained loss of five teeth, he has undergone surgery and took treatment as inpatient for a period of 4 days. Root canal has been made for the purpose of installing artificial tooth. The Trial Court taking into consideration the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and taking the disability to an extent of 10% and applying the multiplier 18 as he was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 64,800/- towards disability and future loss of income; Rs. 20,500/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant charges, diet and nourishment; Rs. 5,740/- towards medical expenditure; Rs. 400/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. In all, the Trial Court has award a sum of Rs. 94,170/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, the liability was fastened on the second respondent i.e. the owner of the lorry to compensate the claimant. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Trial Court has filed this appeal. 5. Smt. B.N. Manjula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. R.C. Nagaraj, advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Trial Court is on the lower side. In the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, which dashed against the KSRTC bus, the appellant being an inmate of the bus had sustained grievous injuries. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW-2 and he has clearly stated in his evidence that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on 30.7.2008 for the injuries he has sustained. Arch/splinting was done under local anesthesia. In view of loss of 5 teeth, the claimant has suffered disfigurement. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 8. The only dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned. 2, 3 and 5 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 8. The only dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned. 9. The occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant is not in disputed. In the accident, the claimant has lost five teeth, on account of which, he has suffered disfigurement. The doctor who treated the claimant has stated in his evidence that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on 30.7.2008 for the injuries he has sustained in the accident. Arch/splinting was done under local anesthesia. In view of loss of five teeth, the patient complains of difficulty in chewing the food and speech. There is disfigurement in the face due to loss of teeth. The claimant has to undergo root canal treatment for the artificial teeth. At the young age, the claimant has lost five teeth. Once in 10 to 15 years, he has to change the old teeth by replacing the new one by way of root canal process. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded for future medical expenditure. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to Rs. 94,170/- awarded by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 7.5.2011 made in MVC No. 78/2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nanjanagudu is modified. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in addition to Rs. 94,170/- awarded by the Trial Court. The 2nd respondent is liable to compensate the claimants. The second respondent is liable to compensate the claimant. Appeal partly allowed.