IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.8214 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
Kum. Veda.A D/o Sri. H. Anandkumar Aged about 21 years No.1128, 3rd Main, M.C.Layout, Near R.P. Kalyana Mantapa, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. ... Appellant (By Sri. Jayaramaiah, Advocate) AND:
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Central Office, Shanthinagar, K.H.Road, Bangalore – 560 027.
Represented by its Managing Director. ... Respondent (By Sri D. Vijayakumar, Advocate) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 22.06.2016 passed in MVC No.4259/2015 on the file of the Member, Principal MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The claimant-injured is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22/06/2016 in M.V.C.No.4259/2015 on the file of the Member, Principal MACT, Bangalore.
2. The claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 12/06/2013 at about 4:30 A.M., when she was traveling in the K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.KA-17-F-1181 from Magadi to Bengaluru and when the bus reached near Chikka Thorepalya bridge cross, Magadi main road, Magadi Taluk, the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-44-1827/1828, due to which the bus fell down on the northern side of the channel. Due to the impact of accident, the claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that the petitioner-claimant sustained swelling tenderness over left clavicle, fracture distal 1/3rd of left clavicle and took treatment as inpatient for six days and it is also stated that the claimant was an Engineering student and she lost her studies for a period of six months due to injuries caused to her in the accident.
3. On service of notice, respondent-Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement denying the averments of the petition. It is stated that the driver of the tractor without following the traffic rules and regulations, without any signal applied brake and stopped the said tractor, during that time the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus applied brake to avoid the accident but bus dashed to the hind portion of the tractor. It is contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of tractor driver.
4. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary evidence, has awarded total global compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the Doctor who has examined as PW-4 has opined that the claimant has suffered disability of 9.1% to whole body. As such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on ‘Loss of future earning’. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘Pain & Suffering’ and on the head of ‘Conveyance’. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- Corporation submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award. He submits that the claimant was inpatient for only six days and the claimant has not suffered any disability warranting award of compensation under the head of ‘Loss of future earning’.
8. The accident which involved K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.KA-17-F-1181 and tractor bearing No.KA-44- 1827/1828 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is before this Court only seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. On going through the judgment and award, it is seen that the claimant has suffered swelling tenderness over left clavicle, fracture distal 1/3rd of left clavicle for which she has undergone surgery and the Tribunal has noted the fracture of clavicle is united and the same is elicited from the mouth of PW-4(Doctor). Therefore, the question of assessing disability in respect of clavicle would not arise. Further it is to be noted that fracture suffered by the claimant is united. With regard to the medical expenses the Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,118/- for which the claimant has produced the medical bills.
10. It is true that the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads ‘Pain & suffering, conveyance & Nourishment’. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- as enhanced global compensation. Thus, the claimant would be in all entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.1,25,000/-.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced compensation shall be released to the claimant.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ