IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1525/2016 (MV) BETWEEN :
Smt. S. C. Chinna, Chowdamma, W/o late D.M. Channa Veeraiah, Aged about 69 years, Reisding at No.14, TCH College Road, Harinagar, Muneshwara Block, Anjinapura Post, Bangalore-560 062.
(By Sri. Gurudev Prasad K T., Advocate) ... Appellant AND :
The Managing Director, BMTC, Shanthinagar Bangalore-560 027 …Respondent (By Sri. F. S. Dabali., Advocate) This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the Judgment and Award dated : 23.11.2015 passed in MVC No.3047/2014 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM and MACT-7, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Admission, this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award passed by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, Mact-7, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.7,14,090/-.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and disability has to be assessed at 100%.
3. The case has been registered against the driver of the bus for rash and negligent driving on his part in Crime No.68/2014 for the offences Punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to dismiss the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the documents produced. It is seen that appellant is a flower vendor and her income has been assessed at lower side. The injured appellant has suffered degloving injury right forearm with fracture,right elbow with both bones of fore arm and fracture of humerus with muscles exposed and crushed, left right upper limb above elbow amputation has been done on 11.06.2014. The doctor PW-2 has stated that the appellant has sustained crush injury of right upper limb at the arm level due to a road traffic accident, when a bus ran over her arm while getting down the bus. And there was severe crushing of right distal Humerus bone with the mangled limb just hanging on the tissue only and the distal pulse was absent and there was no active movements of the mangled limb below the elbow level and so a right upper limb above elbow amputation has been done and it is assessed that the injured has suffered a disability of 36%. Taking into consideration the above aspects I am inclined to award another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering, another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards food and nourishment, another sum of Rs.80,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities of life. But the appellant is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of future income as she is a retired clerk. Hence, the future income of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal stands rejected. Hence the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000/-.
The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Sd/- JUDGE Ag