Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs Smt. Mubeena Begum

Ravi Malimath

Aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 13-8-2007 passed in MVC No.4533/2006 by the XIX Additional Judge, Court: of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH No.17), the respondent has filed the present appeal questioning the liability and the quantum. It is the case of the claimant that on 25-4-2006 at about 4.45 p.m. when she was riding a Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA-04-EH-85-48 at N.R. Road, one BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-1246 came in a high speed and dashed her vehicle in front of Corporation office. In the said accident the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries. She was shifted to P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital, Bangalore, and undertook treatment between 25-4-2006 to 27-4-2006. Thereafter a claim Petition was filed seeking compensation for the same. The claim was resisted by the appellant. The Tribunal by the impugned Judgment & award granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The said award is questioned by the respondent herein on the ground of liability and quantum.

Sri D.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned Judgment and award is bad in law and liable to be set aside. There is no evidence on record to show that the liability has been established against the appellant. That the quantum of compensation awarded is far from excessive. There is no material to show that she was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Further that the injuries sustained by the claimant is mere abrasion and hence there cannot be disability to perform his duties. Hence he pleads that the appeal be allowed.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and examined the Records. The respondent is served and unrepresented. Notice on her has been held to be sufficient by the order dated 8-9-2013.

In order to prove the income of the claimant she has produced the income tax returns vide Ex.P-14. The same is with reference to assessment year 2003-04. On the basis of the said income tax return the income of the claimant has been taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month.

In order to prove the disability the claimant has relied upon the wound certificate issued by the Doctor vide Ex.P-5 as well as the discharge summary Ex.P-6 The evidence of the Doctor P.W.2 indicates that the claimant has suffered injuries as follows: -

abrassion superfitial 2 x 1 cms. On left foot dorsum.

superfitial abrasion 2 x 2 cms. On left ankle joint.

X-ray of left leg AP-undisplaced fracture of left Fibula lower 1/3rd.

Notwithstanding the injury, the claimant has suffered a fracture on the lower end at the ankle joint which is stated to be grievous in nature. The x-ray with reference to the said injury has been marked as Ex.P-17. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said documents has been disputed by them. That it has been specifically put to the claimant that there is no fracture suffered by the claimant. He further contends that the records which are available in the Court today do not disclose any fracture suffered by the claimant. He accordingly pleads that Ex.P-17 the x-ray report cannot be relied upon to establish the fracture sustained by the claimant.

On hearing the counsel, I''am of the considered view that the contention or the appellant is well founded. The appellant has specifically disputed the factum of fracture suffered by the claimant. In order to establish the fracture there is no sufficient material placed on record which lead to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered injury of the grievous nature as noted by the Doctor in Injury No.4. Therefore I''am of the considered view that the grievous injury as pleaded by the claimant is not backed by the material which the claimant has produced. Secondly, the disability as noted by the Doctor in pursuance of the injuries suffered by the claimant cannot be accepted. Therefore the compensation awarded to the claimant under the head of loss of future earnings therefore cannot be sustained. It shall accordingly stand deleted. So far as other expenses granted to the claimant towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant charges, loss of amenities, mental agony under other heads stand undisturbed.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly-allowed. The compensation awarded to the claimant shall stand reduced to the extent of deleting the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings to an extent of Rs. 1,48,000/-. The rest of the amount shall stand settled by the appellant- The appeal is accordingly allowed. The amount in-deposit shall stand transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.