Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1343 (KAR)

M. Swamy S/O. Manjappa C. v. Depot Manager

2025-11-21

B.MURALIDHARA PAI

body2025
JUDGMENT : B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J. 1. This is the appeal wherein the Claimant in MVC No.629/2014 on the file of learned Addl. Senior civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur has prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The Claimant namely Sri M. Swamy has maintained the claim petition in MVC No.629/2014 praying for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred during the intervening night of 01.11.2013 and 02.11.2013, when he was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-17-F-1411 from Bengaluru to his native place. After contest, the tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.14,37,000/- to the Claimant together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 3. The tribunal has held that the respondents i.e., the Depot Manager of the offending vehicle and the representative of their Self Insurance Fund are liable to pay the compensation as determined by it. The respondents have not challenged the impugned award. 4. The Claimant has maintained this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the tribunal has not considered the evidence on record regarding his actual income at the time of the accident and did not appreciate the materials on record regarding his disability suffered on account of injuries sustained in the accident. As such he has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondents/KSRTC supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the Claimant by taking into consideration all relevant aspects such as nature of injuries sustained by him, period of treatment, the disability on account of accidental injuries. As such, he contended that the Claimant has not made out any valid ground to interfere with impugned award. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award goes to show that based on the materials placed before it, the tribunal has taken age of the Claimant as about 23 years as on the date of accident and applied multiplier of 18 for the purpose of determining loss of future income. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award goes to show that based on the materials placed before it, the tribunal has taken age of the Claimant as about 23 years as on the date of accident and applied multiplier of 18 for the purpose of determining loss of future income. The tribunal has taken note of the injuries sustained by the Claimant i.e., fracture of bony part of the external auditory canal on left side, pericranial soft tissue swelling noted in the left frontal convexity with air pockets in it and sclerosis of bilateral mastoid air calls s/o bilateral sclerosis mastoiditis as well as other simple injuries and his period of treatment as an inpatient from 04.11.2013 to 26.09.2014 with few days of intervals. Further, based on the evidence of PW-2 and the disability certificate issued by him, which is marked at Ex.P48, the tribunal took permanent physical disability in the Claimant to his whole body at 50% and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.14,37,000/- to the Claimant under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs. 1 Pain and Sufferings 80,000 2 Medical Expenses 1,61,623 3 Conveyance, diet, extra nourishment charges, food and attendant charges 1,59,000 4 Loss of Income during laid up period 1,21,500 5 Loss of Future Earning Capacity on account of Permanent Physical Disability 8,74,000 6 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 50,000 Total 14,46,923 Less: Amount received from the Respondent as Interim Compensation 10,000 Net Amount 14,36,923 Rounded off to 14,37,000 7. The first and foremost contention of the Claimant in this appeal is that the tribunal has erred in taking his income as Rs.8,100/- per month ignoring the statements of PW-4 that he was getting Rs.9,000/- per month in normal course and the extra income that was being earned by the Claimant by working overtime. The Claimant has contended that he was earning about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month at the relevant point of time. 8. It is the case of the Claimant that after completing his ITI Course of Fitter, he joined SKF Technology at Bengaluru as a Trainee and thereafter he was working as an Operator in Prakash Sheeting Private Limited, Bengaluru with salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. It is the further case of the Claimant that with OT benefit, he was earning about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month. It is the further case of the Claimant that with OT benefit, he was earning about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month. In support of this contention, the Claimant has examined one Sri P. Rajagopal as PW-4 before the tribunal. 9. The statement made by PW-4 on oath and the contents of authorization letter produced at Ex.P58 goes to show that he is an employee of a labour contractor namely Sri A. Sivan, who is running a business in the name of M/s HRD Integrated Manpower Solution. Thereby it becomes clear that PW-4 is not directly related to the alleged employer of the Claimant namely Prakash Seating Private Limited. 10. During his evidence, PW-4 has produced an extract of Register of Wages maintained by M/s HRD Integrated Manpower Solution at Ex.P60. The contents of this document give an impression that the entries therein pertains to the workers/ laborers provided by M/s HRD Integrated Manpower Solution to M/s Prakash Seating Private Limited. Even the wage slip produced by the Claimant at Ex.P39 indicates that he was working with M/s Prakash Seating Private Limited as a labor/employee provided through M/s HRD Integrated Manpower Solution. 11. In his evidence, PW-4 has stated that the Claimant was working with them as a Fitter from May-2013 to October- 2013 and that the Claimant was getting daily wages of Rs.300/- per day. Whereas, the contents of Ex.P60 go to show that gross wages of the Claimant was Rs.2,700/- (in May-2013), Rs.7,506/- (in June-2013) and, Rs.8,100/- each from July-2013 to October- 2013). It is to be noted that during his evidence PW-4 has neither stated anything about the Claimant having worked as an Operator or having earned additional income by working overtime, during his employment between May-2013 to October- 2013. He has also not produced any document before the tribunal in that regard. As such it is to be held that the Claimant has failed to prove that he had income of more than Rs.8,100/- per month, at the relevant point of time. Hence, it is to be held that the tribunal has rightly considered income of the Claimant as Rs.8,100/- per month. 12. The Claimant has examined Dr. Ashwath Acharya as PW-2 and got marked a disability certificate at Ex.P48 to prove his permanent disability suffered on account of accidental injuries. Hence, it is to be held that the tribunal has rightly considered income of the Claimant as Rs.8,100/- per month. 12. The Claimant has examined Dr. Ashwath Acharya as PW-2 and got marked a disability certificate at Ex.P48 to prove his permanent disability suffered on account of accidental injuries. PW-2 is the Orthopedics Surgeon and one of the doctors who treated the Claimant in Kasturba Medical College and Hospital at Manipal. In his evidence, PW-2 has stated that the Claimant has suffered 40% loss of power at shoulder and elbow joint and 60% loss of power at wrist joint on account of injuries sustained in the accident and that there is 50% loss of movements at shoulder, elbow and wrist joint. He has further opined that the Claimant has got permanent disability of 75% to his left upper limb function, which is irreversible. 13. Basing on the testimony of PW-2 and other relevant aspects such as chances for the Claimant to earn by involving himself in other avocation, the tribunal arrived at loss of future earning capacity as 50%. On careful appreciation of the materials available on record, this Court opines that such an assessment of the tribunal is not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is because during his evidence PW- 2 has not only stated about percentage of permanent disability in left upper limb function of the Claimant but also specifically stated that without the support the left hand of the Claimant falls down like a pendulum and that the said aspect is effecting the usage of his right hand. In view of the same, this Court opines that it would be just and proper to assume loss of future earning capacity of the Claimant at the rate of percentage of permanent disability for his particular limb i.e., 75%. In that event, loss of future income of the Claimant works out to Rs.13,12,200/- (Rs.8,100/- X 12 X 18 X 75%). 14. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the Claimant under the head of pain and sufferings. In that event, loss of future income of the Claimant works out to Rs.13,12,200/- (Rs.8,100/- X 12 X 18 X 75%). 14. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the Claimant under the head of pain and sufferings. The materials on record go to show that the Claimant has suffered fracture of bony part of the external auditory canal on left side, pericranial soft tissue swelling noted in the left frontal convexity with air pockets in it and sclerosis of bilateral mastoid air calls s/o bilateral sclerosis mastoiditis as well as other simple injuries on account of the accident in question and that he has undergone treatment as an inpatient from 04.11.2013 to 26.09.2014 with few days of intervals. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the Claimant, this Court opines that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Claimant under the head of pain and sufferings in place of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 15. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Claimant under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Undisputedly, the Claimant was a young boy aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he was a bachelor. The statements made on oath by PW-2 go to show that the Claimant cannot use his left upper limb to do his daily activities and that without support the left upper limb falls down like a pendulum. Thus, one can imagine the plight of the Claimant during rest of his life. In view of the same, this Court opines that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Claimant under the head of loss of amenities including of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 16. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,21,500/- to the Claimant under the head of loss of income during laid up period. The tribunal has considered a period of 15 months as laid up period for computing the compensation under this head. The materials on record indicate that the Claimant has undergone treatment as an inpatient for about 10 months i.e., from 04.11.2013 to 26.09.2014. As such it is to be held that the tribunal has considered reasonable period of laid up, for determining the compensation. 17. The materials on record indicate that the Claimant has undergone treatment as an inpatient for about 10 months i.e., from 04.11.2013 to 26.09.2014. As such it is to be held that the tribunal has considered reasonable period of laid up, for determining the compensation. 17. Similarly, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,61,623/- under the head of medical expenses and Rs.1,59,000/- under the head of conveyance and incidental charges. The tribunal has awarded the compensation under these heads based on materials placed on record such as medical and other bills and having regard to the period of treatment as well as probable expenses incurred by the Claimant. This Court does not find any basis for enhancing the compensation under these heads. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,45,000/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs. 1 Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000 2 Medical Expenses 1,61,623 3 Conveyance, diet, extra nourishment charges, food and attendant charges 1,59,000 4 Loss of Income during laid up period 1,21,500 5 Loss of Future Earning Capacity on account of Permanent Physical Disability 13,12,200 6 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 1,00,000 Total 19,54,323 Less: Amount received from the Respondent as Interim Compensation 10,000 Net Amount 19,44,323 Rounded off to 19,45,000 19. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The appeal is allowed in part II. The judgment and award dated 12.05.2016 in MVC No.629/2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Ranebennur is modified. III. The Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,45,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand) Only as against Rs.14,37,000/- awarded by the tribunal. IV. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment/realization. V. The Respondents shall pay/deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the concerned tribunal within a period of two months from this day. VI. On such deposit, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of the Claimant/appellant in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years, with a liberty to withdraw periodical interest thereon. The Claimant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount. VII. Draw an award accordingly.