Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 934 (KAR)

Panduranga Vaidya v. Markandappa Kumar

2020-06-01

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT Srishananda, J. - By this appeal, the claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned III MACT, Bellary in MVC No.932/2012 dated 25.10.2013. 2. It is contended by the petitioner/claimant that on 27.01.2012 at about 5.45 a.m. he was proceeding in a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA- 32/F-1738 from Hospet to Kudligi as a conductor. When the bus was proceeding on NH-63 near SMIORE Factory, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the tractor and trailer, which was ahead of the bus. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Primary Health Care Centre, Hospet and thereafter to a private hospital. It is contended that the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other follow-up expenses to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is further contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, there is a permanent disability and disfigurement due to which he lost his job of conductor and was given a job of a clerk in KSRTC and he sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/-. 3. Notice was issued in the claim petition. Respondent No.1/the driver of the bus remained exparte and respondent No.2/Divisisional Controller, NWKRTC appeared and filed statement of objections denying the petition averments. It is also contended that the accident has not occurred on account of negligent driving of the driver of the bus but on account of negligent driving of the tractor. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent/corporation has already paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner towards medical expenses and accommodated him as a clerk instead of conductor and managing the same salary. As such, the petitioner is not put to any hardship or injury and thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. In order to prove the petition averments, petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documentary evidence vide Ex.P.1 to P.8. Among the documentary evidence, Ex.P.7 and P.8 i.e., disability certificates, are the relevant documents. In the oral evidence, the petitioner reiterated the petition averments and prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/-. 5. 4. In order to prove the petition averments, petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documentary evidence vide Ex.P.1 to P.8. Among the documentary evidence, Ex.P.7 and P.8 i.e., disability certificates, are the relevant documents. In the oral evidence, the petitioner reiterated the petition averments and prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/-. 5. On behalf of the respondent/corporation, one Rajendra R. M. is examined as R.W.1 and they have produced documents vide Ex.R.1 to R.13. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of entire evidence on record and after hearing the parties, has allowed the petition by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- as under:- 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 35,000/- 2. Loss of amenities & happiness : Rs. 25,000/- 3. Towards permanent disability : Rs. 50,000/- 4. Future medical expenses : Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs.1,25,000/- 7. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- in all having regard to the fact that there is amputation of left leg of the claimant and as such there is a permanent disfigurement and disability, which has been totally ignored by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is also too low and sought for enhancement. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/corporation contended that absolutely there is no merit in anyone of the grounds urged by the appellant/claimant in the appeal. The respondent/ corporation having re-accommodated the claimant as a clerk without there being any reduction in salary, the appeal sans merit and sought for dismissal of the same. 9. After hearing the parties, the sole point that would arise for our consideration is "whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?" 10. On consideration of entire material on record, we answer the above point in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 11. The accident that took place on 27.01.2012 at about 5.45 a.m., wherein the appellant/claimant got injured resulting in amputation of his left leg is not in dispute and payment of Rs.1,20,000/- by the respondent/corporation towards medical expenses of the claimant is also not in dispute. The accident that took place on 27.01.2012 at about 5.45 a.m., wherein the appellant/claimant got injured resulting in amputation of his left leg is not in dispute and payment of Rs.1,20,000/- by the respondent/corporation towards medical expenses of the claimant is also not in dispute. Taking into account the relevant facts and the documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards medical expenses, but has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. As referred to supra, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and sufferings and sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. 12. The appellant/claimant took treatment from 27.01.2012 to 27.02.2012 in Sri. Dhrmasthal Manjunatheshwar Hospital, Dharwad as an inpatient and admittedly, there was infection in the surgery site and as such, he was again admitted to hospital from 21.05.2012 to 26.05.2012. 13. Considering the total period of hospitalization, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded on the head of pain and sufferings to the tune of Rs.35,000/- is not adequate and therefore, same needs to be enhanced. 14. So also, on the head of loss of amenities and happiness, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation, which is also in our considered opinion is not adequate and we feel that the same needs to be enhanced. 15. Having regard to the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that on the head of pain and sufferings another sum of Rs.35,000/- and on the head of loss of amenities and happiness another sum of Rs.25,000/- would be appropriate. 16. Accordingly, the amount of compensation on the above two heads are enhanced and in total a sum of Rs.60,000/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal in part. Hence, the above point is answered in affirmative and we pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition. The respondent No.2/Corporation shall pay the said enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.