Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 709 (KAR)

Managing Director Bmtc v. Ranjith Rai And Others

2020-03-12

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.N. Satyanarayana, J. - Respondent No. 2-Bengaluru Metropolitan Traffic Corporation [BMTC, for short] in MVC No. 299/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., [Tribunal, for short], has come up in this appeal, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.11.2017 passed therein. 2. Admittedly, the challenge by the Respondent No. 2-BMTC is only with reference to the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads i.e., under the head loss of future income and also with reference to the amount spent towards medical expenses on the ground that there is duplication. 3. In this proceedings, trial Court records is secured and thereafter this matter is taken up for final disposal in the presence of learned Counsel for the Appellants Sri. F.S. Dabali and Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-claimant before the Tribunal. 4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Perused the Judgment impugned as well as the trial Court records. 5. On going through the same, it is seen that the claim petition is filed seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident dated 4.3.2012 involving motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-51-EC-1362 and BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-4536. The fact that the said accident took place at about 11 am on the said date is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time of the accident, the claimant was the rider of the motor cycle which is hit by the bus belonging to the appellant. 6. The medical records would indicate that the claimant was aged about 23 years and was working as an Accountant at Axis Industries, Jegari Industrial Area, Bengaluru as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.5 -P.S. Murdeshwar. He would speak about the employment of the claimant as well as his monthly salary which is said to be Rs. 11,000/- per month. In the accident, the claimant suffered permanent injury of his four limbs which has resulted in quadriparesis [paralysis of all four limbs of the body i.e., including right and left limb]. It is also stated that he has absolutely no control over the bowel and bladder movements and he is continuously on diaper and catheter. In other words, the evidence available on record would indicate that the claimant is in vegetative state which is confirmed by P.W.3. 7. It is also stated that he has absolutely no control over the bowel and bladder movements and he is continuously on diaper and catheter. In other words, the evidence available on record would indicate that the claimant is in vegetative state which is confirmed by P.W.3. 7. It is in the background of the aforesaid evidence available on record, the trial Court has allowed the claim petition. However, while calculating the compensation payable, instead of taking total disability at 100%, the same is taken at 80% and compensation is calculated taking his income at Rs. 11,000/- and arrived at total compensation of Rs. 19,00,800/- towards loss of future income. While doing so, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,08,781/- towards medical expenses. So far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 49,000/- towards attendant charges, food and extra nourishing and conveyance, and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future amenities, which is under challenge by the Respondent No. 2-BMTC in this proceedings. Though medical expenses is considered and awarded in a sum of Rs. 9,08,781/-, learned Counsel for the appellants would state that there is duplication of bills nearly to the tune of Rs. 3,77,252/-, thereby clearly indicating that the amount which is spent is Rs. 5,31,529/- only. 8. Though there is neither an appeal nor Cross objections filed by the claimant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reassessed independently looking into the trial Court records. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs. 60,000/- is a paltry sum compared to the injuries suffered which is continuous in nature. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. So far as attendant charges, food and nourishment charges are concerned, the same is considered at Rs. 50,000/- as against Rs. 49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. So far as amenities is concerned, the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be a paltry sum which is required to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Now coming to the compensation awarded under the head loss of future income is concerned, the evidence available on record would indicate that the injured has suffered 100% disability. So far as amenities is concerned, the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be a paltry sum which is required to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Now coming to the compensation awarded under the head loss of future income is concerned, the evidence available on record would indicate that the injured has suffered 100% disability. Taking the disability at 80% is not proper. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the loss of future income be enhanced to 90%. Therefore, the loss of future income works out to Rs. 21,38,400/-[Rs. 11,000/- x 90% = Rs. 9,900/- x 12 x 18] instead of Rs. 19,00,800/-. 10. So far as amount Rs. 9,08,781/- awarded under the head medical expenses is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant would bring to the notice of this Court that the same is in excess of the amount spent by the claimant. According to him, the claimant while producing the bills not only produced bills but also estimation which has resulted in duplication to the tune of Rs. 3,77,252/-. Therefore, according to him, the amount that can actually be considered in favour of the claimant is Rs. 5,31,529/-, the same is accepted. Therefore, the total compensation amount which is required to be awarded in favour of the claimants is reassessed as under: Particulars Amount [in Rupees] Pain and sufferings 2,00,000 Attendant charges, food and extra nourishing & conveyance 50,000 Loss of future amenities 1,00,000 Loss of future income (Rs.11,000/- x 90% = Rs. 9,900/- x 12 x 18) Rs. 21,38,400 Medical expenses 5,31,528 TOTAL 30,19,928 Rounded off to 30,20,000 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part so far as challenge to the medical bills considered by the Tribunal. With reference to other heads, this Court has suo motu reassessed the compensation and refixed the same at Rs. 30,20,000/- which the claimants are entitled to receive with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment of entire amount. 12. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be sent to the Tribunal. The balance amount is required to be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the total compensation awarded Rs. 20,00,000/- shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank. 12. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be sent to the Tribunal. The balance amount is required to be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the total compensation awarded Rs. 20,00,000/- shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank. If in future, if the claimant intends to deposit the same in any other Banks which yield better rate of interest for maintenance of the injured, the claimant is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of father of the claimant to meet the loans raised for medical expenses and other incidental expenses.