AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—All these appeals arise out of the common Judgment I Award dated 23rd October, 1991, delivered by Sri. Mohamad Anwar, Member he Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikmangalur, in M.V.C. Nos. 198, 199, 215, 218, 220, 221, 225, 229, 228, 239, 240, 245, 246, 247, 250, 287, 283, 289, 304, , 311 and 435 of 1989, arising out of one and the same accident. The scope of these (sic) is confined to the quantum of compensation. No cross-objection or cross- (sic) has been filed by the respondents:
The facts of the case in brief are that on 27th of May, 1989, the claimants (sic) claim petitions, except the two M.V.C. Nos. 214 and 311 of 1989, are the sons who had been injured, while in M.V.C. Nos. 214 and 314, claim petitions (sic) been preferred by L.Rs. of the two persons, who had died as a result of injuries (sic) sed to them, on account of motor vehicle accident.
Appeal Nos. M.F.A. 680 of 1992 and 671 of 1992, are the appeals filed by heirs of the deceased persons, who had died in course of accident and on account the injuries received by them in the accident. While, the other appeals, namely (sic)A.Nos. 656, 677 and 679 of 1992,681,682 and 683 of 1992, are the appeals which (sic) been filed by the injured claimants. As all these appeals arise from one common (sic) given by the Tribunal, with reference to one common accident, these (sic) are being disposed of by one common Judgment by this Court.
That on 27.5.1989, KSRTC Bus bearing No. CAF 9138, was carrying the passengers and the injured as well as the two deceased persons were travelling passengers. The bus was driven by Respondent No. 1, in all these cases. Accord to the case of the claimants-appellants, the accident did take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and it fell down in Veda in near Sakrepatna Town, from the Bridge, as a result of that accident, Yellamma whose legal representatives filed M.Y.C. No. 214 of 1989 and Narsamma, who legal heirs filed M.V.C No. 311 of 1989, died, while the other claimants sustain injuries as well to be mentioned later on.
The claimants in these claim petitions claimed compensation as (sic) mentioned in the claim petitions will be indicated when dealing with each (sic) app separately.
The notice having beep issued to the respondents, the respondents (sic) the objections in all the cases resisting the claim of the claimants and denying allegations of the claimants to the effect that accident did take place on account any rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus, by its driver.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal clubbed all cases and made M.V.C. No. 250 of 1989, a leading case and common evidence recorded in all these cases, The Tribunal framed the following three issues:
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident took place 27.5.1989, at about 9.00 p.m., near Sakrepatna, Veda Bridge (sic) Hall, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 ?
(2) To what compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled
(3) What order?
The Tribunal after consideration of the material evidence on record, (sic) that the claimants-Petitioners, that is, the present appellants had fully established that the accident in question had taken place on 27.5.1989, at 9. p.m., (sic) Sakrepatna Veda Bridge, Gowry Hall, on account of and due to rash and negligent (sic) driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal awarded the compensation all cases, except one and it had dismissed M.V.C. No. 239 of 1989. Counsels for appellants as well as respondents jointly point out that no appeal appears to (sic) been filed in that M.V.C. case. The Tribunal awarded the compensation, particular with respect to the cases giving rise to these appeals as under:
Case number compensation awarded 1. M.V.C. 214 of 1989 In total Rs. 34,500-00 2. M.V.C. 311 of 1989 In total Rs. 35300-00 3. M.V.C. 304 of 1989 In total Rs. 37,000-00 4. M.V.C. 246 of 1989 In total Rs. 8,200-00 5. M.V.C 250 of 1989 In total Rs. 42,000-00 6. M.V.C. 288 of 1989 In total Rs. 21,500-00 7. M.V.C. 240 of 1989 In total Rs. 22,000-00 8. M.V.C 245 of 1989 In total Rs. 20,800-00 (sic) reference to other cases, there is no need to mention as to what compensation (sic) been awarded, the award in those cases is not the subject-matter of these Deals. The Tribunal has also awarded interest on the said amounts of compensation awarded to each of the claimants at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of (sic) till the date of actual payment. That having felt dissatisfied with the reposition awarded, or the amount of compensation awarded, the claimants, (sic) who are either the heirs of the deceased or are the injured persons themselves (sic) preferred the abovementioned First Appeals in this Court. As I have already (sic) above no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-(sic) and the finding on issue No. 1, to the effect that accident causing death of (sic) and Narasamma, or resulting in causing injuries to the injured persons, (sic) taken place or had occurred solely and exclusively on account of the rash and (sic) driving of the KSRTC bus bearing No. CAF 9138, by its driver respondent (sic), in the claims petitions as well as in all these appeals, has become final as it (sic) not been challenged.
On behalf of the appellants, it has been contended by Mr. N.S. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the appellants that in making the assessment of compensation (sic) in awarding it, the Tribunal in all these cases has committed legal error or error law as well as error of fact. He had taken me through material on record in each (sic) and pointed out the legal error which will be discussed hereinafter. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the interest of justice require the (sic) of compensation as well as awarding of compensation in respect of (sic) or matters in respect of which the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation or has illegally refused to award compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the interest which was awarded at the rate of 6%, too meagre. He submitted that the interest should have been awarded at higher (sic) of interest atleast 12% per annum. These contentions of the learned Counsel for (sic) appellants have hotly been contested By Mr. H.B. Narayan, learned Counsel for (sic) respondents.
I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the (sic). Now, I propose to deal with each appeal and the claim made by appellants each appeal separately as well.
M.F.A. No. 680 of 1992 : This appeal arises from M.V.C. case No. 214 of 89. In this case, Yellamma, who was one of the passengers in the bus died on count of the accident. The claimants in this appeal, namely, Hanumanthappa appellant No. 2) and Kum. Manjamma (Appellant No. 1), are husband and (sic)r of deceased Yellamma, they had made a claim for compensation to the (sic) of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal has found that at the time of accident and death Yellamma taking place, Yellamma was aged about 25 years and her husband (sic) was aged about 38 years, while the daughter appellant No. 1 (sic) Manjamma) was aged about 3 years. The Tribunal has also accepted the PW (sic) version to the effect that deceased-Yellamma, wife of PW 12, was an earning (sic) and was doing the job of agriculture coolie. PW 12, has stated in his (sic) that Yellamma''s daily earnings were in between Rs. 15/- to 16/-, a day. (sic) has stated that she was regularly doing that job and her average income was . 15/- or 16/-, a day. The Tribunal has opined without any rational basis that she is earning Rs. 15/- or 16/- per day cannot be believed. I am unable to understand why the uncontroverted testimony of PW12, should not be believed that it can be taken on a lower side that her income should not have been Rs. 16/- per day should have been Rs. 16/- or Rs. 15/- per day and Yellamma by her income v providing source of income to the family and source of maintaining the family the husband and to the child. Yellamma''s death definitely caused loss of income the family as well as loss to the minor child. Husband is the legal heir alongwith daughter. Family was being carried with the assistance of income provided Yellamma, now entire responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of Yellamrr. husband - P W12. In such circumstances, to award compensation, it has to be tool into, had Yellamma being alived, what contribution would have been there of t lady in the maintenance of the family by PW 12, with Yellamma''s co-operation a to that extent definitely, it could be said that Yellamma''s husband - PW 12 and daughter were dependent on the maintenance of the family by the income of lady. The Tribunal, in my opinion was mistaken in taking that solely Manjammav benefited by the earnings of the deceased, really both were benefited by the income (sic) of Yellamma. In such circumstances, in my opinion for the loss of dependency a loss of family income to the claimants, it would have been proper for the Tribunal to have assessed it on the criteria that monthly income of the deceased minus 1 A'' of the amount of income which could be presumed that he or she i.e. deceased (sic)be spending on family or own self and the balance i.e. 2/3rd of her income she (sic) be spending on the family and that 2/3rd of that income should have been taker be basis for deciding the question of dependency on the income from (sic) when husband and wife were living together and maintaining the child. In t context, if I consider, then it appears just and proper that if Yellamma was earn on an average, a sum of Rs. 450/- per month, in other words Rs. 15/- per day, ii 30 days, i.e., her monthly income would be Rs. 450/-, 2/.3rd of which, will come Rs. 300/-, the annual income to the family and dependency annually thus, (sic) have been Rs. 3,600/-. Even when I apply the multiplier of 15, to the (sic) dependency or annual benefit, the multiplier that has been applied by the Tribunal the total dependency to the family would come to Rs. 55,400/- and as such, in i opinion the claimants no doubt, are entitled to get a compensation to the tune of 55,400/- atleast The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500/- in favour of I child, that is to Manjamma, to compensate loss of maternal love and affection a care and it has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the husband-claimant appellant ( 2), as under the head of loss of consortium on death of his wife. In my opinion, the sums are too low. The sum of Rs. 10,000/- should have been awarded to t daughter as compensation for loss of maternal love and affection which has be caused on account of the accidental death of her mother and the poor husband, w had suffered the loss of affectionate wife, should also have been propel compensated and proper compensation which should have been awarded to h would have been also Rs. 10,000/- and I do hereby award these sums towards loss to Manjamma-appellant of love and affection of mother, a sum of 1 10,000/- is awarded to the claimant-appellant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to t claimant (appellant No. 2). The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to t husband, that is the claimant (appellant No. 2), for physical pain and suffer! underwent by the deceased for four days, which later on resulted in death.
The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that husband was entitled to get this amount, because pain and suffering was to the wife, the decease
She had gone and left this universe. This is something personal which is granted to the injured persons and therefore, it should not have been granted. I am unable to accept this contention. This is one way of saying that compensation is awarded to the husband for suffering went on by the deceased. Really, it also caused mental pain and suffering to the husband when his wife was suffering from pain and malady and was fighting with the shadow of death. The husband''s mind was also adversely affected by the malady of the wife and the pain of the wife which the wife was facing. So, in my opinion, the granting of Rs. 3,000/- by the Tribunal under this head, it did not commit any error or mistake. Really, Rs. 3,000/- appears to be on the lower side, in my opinion a sum of Rs. 5,000/- should be awarded under this head and I do award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of estate. There appears to be some substance in the learned Counsel''s contentions. In my opinion, for the loss of life and estate compensation should have been awarded and I think a proper compensation under this head to be awarded would be Rs. 8,000/-. Thus, the claimants-appellants in M.F.A. No. 680/92, are entitled and are awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 88,400/- in toto, as indicated above and their distribution is herein indicated as hereinafter:
Loss of income and dependency Rs. 55,400/- Loss of love, affection and care of mother to claimant No. 1 and of the wife to the husband and consortium for loss thereof together to both the claimants as Rs. 10,000/- each is equal to Rs. 20,000/- For loss of expectancy of life and estate Rs. 8,000/- For pain and suffering underwent by the deceased causing pain/ suffering and mental agony suffered by the claimants Rs. 5,000/- ------------ In total Rs. 88,400/- ------------
As regards M.FA, No. 671 of 1992, this appeal arises from M.V.C. No. 311 of 1989, filed by the claimants, that is legal heirs of one Smt. Narasamma, who had died in the abovementioned motor accident. She had left the four claimants as the legal representatives. At the time of accident, she was aged about 48 years. The Tribunal on the basis of Ex. P 22, has found the deceased to be aged about 55 years, at the time of the accident and death. The Tribunal further found that as per evidence of PW 7, Narsamma was having the earnings to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal further found that the claimants 1, 2 and 3 were major and as cause title of the petition indicates that they were agriculturists and themselves were not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal further found the claimant No. 4, at the time of occurrence was aged 10 years. He was minor and he, that is, the claimant No. 4, was only entitled to damages under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further observed that in every case, it can safely be concluded that Narasamma was spending not less than Rs. 300/- per month on the welfare and maintenance of the minor son, that is the claimant No. 4 and held that on account of accidental death of Narasamma, claimant-(appellant No. 4), suffered loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month which according to the Tribunal, came to Rs. 3,600/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 8, the Tribunal held that the claimant No. 4 was entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,800/-, under the head of loss of dependency. Under this head, it awarded no compensation to any other claimants. Under the head of loss of estate, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards funeral and other obsequies of the deceased, the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. Rs. 2,500/-. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants-Mr. Venugopal that Tribunal erred in depriving the claimants 1 to 3, of any compensation for loss of income and dependency caused by the death of Narsamma in the accident. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the family was joint between mother and the four children, mother''s income from the cultivation used to come to the family account to help the maintenance of the family. The death of Narasamma, has really caused a loss to all the legal representatives of Smt. Narasamma and definitely adversely affected the source of income and dependency of the other three heirs. The learned Counsel submitted that when Narasamma was found to be earning between Rs l,000/- to 1,500/- as per evidence of the PW 7, which was uncontroverted one, the Tribunal should have held that the family had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month or in any case to the extent of Rs. 800/- per month and should have awarded the proper compensation for that. The learned Counsel further urged that the Tribunal had illegally deprived claimants (appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3) of the compensation. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that towards the loss of estate/the sum that has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- is also very meagre, as he had pressed for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate. Learned Counsel further submitted that all the claimants suffered maternal love, affection which they used to get from their mother for long during their life-time and the Tribunal has ignored that aspect of the matter and erred in not granting any compensation on that aspect. In this case also, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the rate of interest awarded i.e. at the rate of 6% per annum is meagre. Question of interest will be dealt with later on when I finally dispose of all the appeals.
These contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have hotly been contested by and on behalf of the respondents. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short ''Act'' provides that an application for compensation arising out of accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A, may be made in case, where death has resulted from accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased as per Clause (b) or by an agent duly authorised by or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The provision of law further provided that all representatives of the deceased, if anyone has not joined presentation of petition for compensation, then application may be made on behalf and for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and other legal representatives, who have not joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. This section is analogous to Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988. The expression ''legal representative'' has not been defined in Motor Vehicles Act by itself. A legal representative may be said to be one, who in law represents the estate of deceased person or a person, who under and in accordance with the law succeeds to the estate of deceased or on whom the estate of deceased devolves, under the law. Such a question did arise for consideration as to who may be said to be the legal representative before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar alias Babli Vs. State of Haryana, in that case, their Lordships observed as under:
The expression ''legal representative'' has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines legal representative'' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and Clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased.
Section 110-A does not put any bar or condition on the right of legal representative to move the application for compensation. A reading of this section discloses that this section does not make any distinction between adults, heirs and non-adult heirs. It really reveals that both legal heirs whether adult or major or minor both can file the claim for compensation which reveals that both are entitled to be compensated to the extent the loss comes out. In my opinion, a legal representative cannot be deprived of the compensation merely because he started earning. When I so opine, I find support as well from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Wanti v. Rudal Singh 1973 ACJ 174 and also from another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Nand Kaur and others Vs. Sukh Raj and others, . Really, the compensation is paid for the loss suffered. Even if the major son has been earning, namely had been living jointly and income of the son with deceased''s income contributed to the family, provided a base for better living, even to the adult members in the maintenance of the family. The loss that has been caused of such an earning member, be it by death of earning mother or father in the accident, it results in the loss of that source the income to the family and therefore, both types of legal heirs, that is major or minor, they are entitled to get the compensation for loss of earning caused by the death of that earning member in the accident. The Delhi High Court in the case of Nand Kaur, referred above, has also observed as under:
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, Insurance Company submits that compensation should be determined on the basis of the dependency of the legal representatives of the deceased. It does not appear to be correct. u/s 110-A of the Act the persons entitled to compensation are his legal representatives. This compensation is paid to the legal representatives on account of untimely death of their ancestor. Whether the sons of the deceased have or having or (have not?) started earning, does not stand to reason that they would not be entitled to compensation of account of untimely death of their ancestor. It seems to me that all the legal representatives who have a right to apply in law for compensation have been deprived of the contribution of the deceased to the family income and therefore, all the legal representatives are entitled irrespective of the (sic) whether they would start earning or not. 11 is not disputed in the present case that the two sons of the deceased have started earning. The elder son(sic)i married and working in the workshop. In this connection reference may (sic) made to Smt. Krishna Wanti v. Kudal Singh 1973 ACJ 174, where was held that all the legal representatives are entitled to compensation an that the sons who would start earning in a couple of years would also (sic) entitled to compensation.
The learned Counsel for the respondents had placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhagwani Devi Vs. Krishna Kumar Saini and Others, and made reference to the observations by Hon''ble S.S. Sodhi, J. in His Lordship''s decision which are contained in Paragraph 11. With all due respects to Hon''ble S.S. Sodhi, J., I am unable to agree, even when those observations have been made in Paragraph 11, am constrained to observe that attention of Hon''ble S.S. Sodhi, J., was not invited to the language of Section 110-A. So, that case is not applicable to these present case; Thus considered in my opinion, the Tribunal committed error of law in holding that petitioners (appellants 1 to 3), were not entitled to any compensation. Family was living jointly, as it is available on record. The four sons and the mother, it is nobody'' case that the four sons were separated from the mother. Narsamma, the deceased according to evidence on record consisting of PW 7, was having an earning of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month from her land and she was maintaining with the income, it might have been that, with the contribution of sons also. So, the family of the mother and the four sons was benefited and maintained and was enjoying the life out of the contribution of the income made by the mother - Narasamma, the deceased prior to her death. Death of Narasamma, in accident definitely caused calamity, a loss of the source of income to the family and the four sons. So definitely all the four sons were entitled to be compensated for loss of income from the source of mother, we may term it as a loss of dependency or whatever term we may us for it, but there had been a loss, but that required to be compensated. If for the moment, it had to be taken that there was some exaggeration about monthly income the lower figure may be taken to be the monthly income in between Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- means, we may take Rs. 1,000/- to be the monthly income or even lessen I may take that it was only Rs. 1,000/- per month of the income of Smt. Narasamm which she used to earn from cultivation. No doubt, she must also have been making use of certain portion of her income to her own self and we may take it 1 /3rd of the income was utilised by her, that is Narasamma, then 2/3rd might have been he contribution to the family. As such, the contribution by the lady would have been towards the benefit of her children and her family to the tune of Rs. 670/- per month that is, Rs. 8,040/-, I may take it round figure as Rs. 8,000/- as yearly contribution of the lady to the family or to the children. The age of the lady at the time of accident has been assessed to be 55 years by the Tribunal. The life span in India, we may take itabout65 years. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8 and without going into the correctness of multiplier, when I apply multiplier, then the figure will come to Rs. 64,000/-. In my opinion, all the claimants together are entitled to this sum as loss of source of income or dependency on account of the death of the mother. The Tribunal has also ignored granting of compensation for loss of maternal love and affection caused to the claimants. The claimants in my opinion, should have been awarded compensation. Under this head in my opinion, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as for loss of love and affection which maybe disbursed as to minor claimant Rs. 4,000/-, the other three majors, who had been major at the time of occurrence would be entitled to Rs. 2,000/- each out of Rs. 10,000/- which had been awarded just now. The sum of Rs.6,000/-by the Tribunal to wards loss of estate and Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal with reference to expenditure on funeral of the deceased and obsequies, the sum of Rs. 2,500/-, in my opinion has been justly and correctly awarded. As regards loss of estate, the compensation has got to be increased a bit and I award a sum of Rs. 8,500/- under the head of loss of estate. Thus, this appeal has also to be allowed and the claimants (appellants 1 to 4) in this case will be entitled to get and to be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- in total as per details given below:
Loss of dependency or source of income from the mother Rs. 64,000-00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000-00 Loss of estate Rs. 8,500-00 Expenses incurred for funeral and obsequies of the deceased Rs. 2,500-00 In total Rs. 85,000-00
M.F.A. No. 656/92, which arises out of No. M. V.C. 304 of 1989: Abdul Qadir, is an injured person in this case. He had claimed Rs. 1,85,000/-. While, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/-, as the compensation. At the time of accident, the injured was aged about 49 years. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:
(i) Expenditure on medical treatment, nursing attendant, special diet and travelling Rs. 8,000/- (ii) For injuries Rs. 14,000/- (iii) For physical pain, mental shock Rs. 3,000/- (iv) For permanent deformity and disability in his right Rs. 5,000/- leg (v) Loss of normal enjoyment of life Rs. 7,000/- In total Rs. 37,000/-
The learned Counsel for the claimant (appellant) submitted that in this case, the special damages with reference to medical treatment, nursing attendant and special diet which has been awarded by the Tribunal is too low, it should have been Rs. 18,000/-. The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring Ex. P103, which he submitted if read with Ex. P104, then it indicates that the amount in Ex. P104, alongwith the amount that is mentioned in Ex. P103, and taken together, that i.e. both the amount of Ex. P103 are included, i t should have been considered. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has illegally ignored Ex. P176, which has been with reference to the taxi''s charges, that has been paid in respect of a trip to some Chikmagalur to Mangalore, in connection with the medical treatment. The learned Counsel submitted that Tribunal has illegally held that there was no justification for travelling from Mangalore to Chikmagalur. As regards this aspect of the matter, I find some substance. In the deposition, PW 3 -Abdul Qadar has stated that in connection with medical treatment and special treatment, he had to come to Mangalore. There appears no reason why Ex. P176, should not be relied. As regards Ex. P103, if it is read in conjunction with Ex. P104, then the documents may be read as dependable documents. Even the documentary evidence on record relied by the Tribunal read alongwith Exs. P103 and P106, really disclose that the claimant had incurred the expenditure on medical treatment and travelling to the tune of Rs. 15,995/-. During the treatment, the claimant would have spent on as well incurred expenditure on diet and travelling. Thus considered the evidence in my opinion, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-. So, under the head of medical expenditure on nursing, attendant, special diet and travelling, the claimant-appellant of Appeal No. M.F.A. 656 of 1992, is entitled to a sum of Rs. 18,000/-.
For pain and suffering, the claimant in my opinion, has been awarded Rs. 3,000/-, also deserves to be increased to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, instead of Rs. 3,000/-. The amount awarded under permanent deformity and disability of his right leg, sum is increased to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 3,000/-. The compensation that has been awarded for injuries and loss of normal enjoyment of life in my opinion, is justified does not call for any interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled in total to a sum of Rs. 52,000/-. The claimant (appellant) has been the Government servant. He has been confined to bed for the period of two months as is given in the evidence that is, from 28.5.1989 to 9.6.1989 and then, 25.7.1989 to 31.8.1989, approximately. The service record of the claimant had been produced which is on record The claimant has been hospitalised and he has been on half pay. The learned Counsel had submitted that, that loss should be compensated, while respondents'' version has been that he can get reimbursement from the Government in my opinion, there is no substance in the respondents Counsel''s contention, because when leave is taken, the claimant definitely would be on the beneficial side, because this leave if would not have been taken and exhausted, he could have got it encashed at the time of retirement, so in such a case, when leave has been taken, at least it should be made good by 50% for a period of two months. The claimant had been getting the salary of about Rs. 2,985/- per month. Fifty percent of the salary each month for a period of two months will come to the full salary of one month. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,985/- added as well, the petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 54,985/-, in round figure, the petitioner is declared entitled in total to a sum of Rs. 55,000/- towards compensation. So, the details of the compensation awarded is as under:
For medical expenditure, nursing attendant and special diet
For medical expenditure, nursing attendant and special diet Rs. 18,000.00 For injuries Rs. 14,000.00 For physical pain, suffering and mental shock Rs. 5,000.00 For permanent deformity and disability to his right leg Rs. 8,000.00 For loss of normal enjoyment of life Rs. 7,000.00 For loss caused by taking leave to the earnings Rs. 2,895.00 In total Rs. 54,895.00 In round figure total compensation awarded Rs. 55,000.00
M.F.A. 677 of 1992, has come out of M.V.C. Case No. 246/89: In this case, PW13 - G.G. Basappa., the injured has been the claimant. He had made a claim of Rs. 54,600/- as total compensation for the injury suffered. According to the Tribunal, as per evidence on record, he was working as Manager of the Bank Jamuna Grameena Bank at Agra in Uttar Pradesh, a Bank sponsored by Canara Bank. The Tribunal has found that this appellant also suffered injuries in the accident in question. The Tribunal awarded him the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,200/-, that is towards expenditure on medical treatment and other incidental items Rs. 700/-, and injuries, pain and suffering Rs. 7,500/-. The Tribunal in this case has found that the evidence consisting of Ex. P300, wound certificate of M.G. Hospital, Chikmangalur, it is revealed that Basappa suffered three simple injuries, dislocation of shoulder, lacerated wound (R) forearm, 2" x 1" x 1/2 and third is the sprain (L) forearm. According to the injury report, these injuries have been simple in nature. As per Ex. P304, the appellant had been hospitalised for the period from 28.5.1989 to 30.5.1989, that is, for three days. It is further mentioned that as per Ex. P305, of McGann Hospital, Shimoga, the claimant was again admitted for his right forearm injury on 30.5.1989 and he was discharged on 31.5.1989. Thus, it appears that he had been for four days in the Hospital. In this case, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that in the course of complete treatment and cure, the claimant had to be on half-pay leave for 39 days'' and therefore, this loss should have been got reimbursed by award of compensation. The learned Counsel invited my attention and pointed out that attention of the Tribunal was invited to Exs. P301 and 306, but the learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal had illegally declared those documents as bogus without assigning any reasons. My attention has been invited to these documents. Ex. P301, the pay scale certificate issued by the Canara Bank. It is the salary slip of April, 1989, which indicates the basic salary to be Rs. 1615/-, while gross salary to be Rs. 3,881/- and that after statutory deductions towards provident fund, etc., the net salary paid is indicated as Rs. 1,652-87 Ps. I am unable to understand for what reason, the Tribunal has declared it to be a bogus document. No reasons are assigned. When declaring a document to be bogus, the Tribunal should have indicated its reasons. Similarly, Ex. P306, is the document relating to leave sanctioned by Canara Bank and indicates as to how many leaves were sanctioned on half-pay or leave without pay, etc., no doubt, this document is in Hindi, issued by the Bank Manager of Jamuna Grammina Bank, Head Office at Agra. I am surprised to take note of the observations of the Tribunal that this document is also bogus. Why it is bogus, the learned Judge has again not assigned any reason nor any reason appears from the document or Judgment. No doubt, document is in Hindi. Hindi being the national language of the country everyone is expected to have its atleast basic knowledge. Even if it could not be read, because of language difficulty by the Member of any Tribunal, the Counsel or party should have been asked to submit its translation into Kannada script. The document in my opinion, is not bogus one. This indicates that from 18.6.1989 to 26.7.1989, the appellant had been on half-pay leave. Earlier to that he had been on leave with pay. From 27.7.1989 and 28.7.1989, some leave as U.C.L., has been mentioned. Anyway, the document indicates that he was on leave on half-pay during the course of treatment. In such a case in my opinion, this document is of assistance to determine the compensation for the period during which he was on half-pay leave and the claimant has been entitled to the compensation with respect to that period, that is period "of 39 days. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. 2,600/- is to be awarded as compensation under this head. The damages which have been awarded towards medical expenses and for incidental items including nourishment to the tune of Rs. 700/- appear to be too low. It appears just and proper that claimant be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under this head. Sum of Rs. 7,500/- which has been awarded to the claimant (appellant) for injuries, pain and suffering is justified. It does not call for any interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation as under:
For injuries, pain and suffering Rs. 7,500/- For expenditure on medical treatment as incidental items including nourishment Rs. 2,000/- For loss of half pay suffered by the petitioner during this period Rs. 2,600/-.
Thus, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12,100/-, with the rate of interest to be mentioned in the final operative portion of the order.
M.F.A.679/92, has come out from MVC No. 250/89: In this case, the claimant has been PW1 -Gavi Rangappa. He was aged about32 year sat the time of accident and he was working as the Manager of the Officer''s Club. He had made a claim for total sum of compensation to Rs. 2,21,700/-. The Tribunal had been pleased to award a sum of Rs. 42,000/-, as compensation. The details of which are as under:
Medical treatment, nursing attendant, special diet and travelling charges Rs. 8,000/- For injury, pain, suffering and mental shock Rs. 20,000/- For physical disability of the right sight and impairment of right ear''s hearing capacity Rs. 6,000/- Loss of normal enjoyment of life Rs. 8,000/- In total Rs. 42,000/-
The Tribunal in this case has not awarded any compensation for loss (sic) present and future earning. Though the Tribunal has found that at the time (sic) accident, petitioner was employed as the Manager of the Club getting a (sic) monthly salary of Rs. 950/-. The Tribunal on the basis of doctor''s evidence, has observed that petitioner was found to be suffering from permanent disability of (sic) right eye with paralysis of right VI erankal nerve causing Diplopha. The Ex. (sic) , medical certificate of St. John''s Hospital, containing the history and medical (sic) , which shows that he was hospitalised as inpatient from 28.5.1989 to 4.6.1989 and he was treated for traumatic cranial nerve palsies. The contents if Exs. P3 and 5, have been proved by Dr. K.L. Narayana Murthy. The Tribunal has observed in its further testimony "that because of cerebral contusion, the petitioner has suffered impairment of hearing in his right ear which loss will persist and he is not likely to recover and in addition, due to X nerve palsy, he feels difficulty in swallowing food and this is also permanent feature. The petitioner was examined by the doctor and the defects of his right ear and throat still persist, beside the memory and concentration deficits. The Tribunal held that all the material facts relating to injuries and their treatment and consequential disabilities of petitioner were duly proved which were testified by PW 21. The injuries of the petitioner and the medical report indicate that the petitioner has been disabled almost permanently of the right sight of eye and right hearing. He also developed throat trouble and his memory has also become deficient as a result of accident. In these circumstances, in my opinion, Tribunal was wrong in relying on the evidence of PW 1, when he deposed since after the accident, he has ceased to work, simply on the ground that the injured has not produced the order of termination. The deposition of PW 1, in the above circumstances is sufficient enough to prove loss of income and capacity to work and employment. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion, that the claimant had been entitled to damage for loss of employment and earning. At the time of the accident, the age of the appellant was 32 years. He had also been hospitalised for 20 days. This aspect ought to have been given due consideration. If his monthly income, i.e., Rs. 950/- is multiplied by 12, the yearly loss will come as something about Rs. 11,400/-. If this figure of loss of annual income is multiplied by multiplier of 10, the claimant can be held to have suffered the loss to the tune of atleast one lakh fourteen thousands, Rs. 1,14,000/-. I think in the round figure, loss of future income should be assessed to the figure of Rs. 1,15,000/- and the appellant to be awarded under this loss of future income, a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-as compensation. He has been confined to bed for 20 days from 27.5.1989 to 14.6.1989. In my opinion, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 650/-for the loss of salary during this period. For medical expenditure, towards treatment, attendant, nursing and travelling charges, the compensation which has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- requires an enhancement by a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion, claimant is entitled to an award of sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenditure on medical treatment, nursing and special diet, etc. As regards compensation awarded on other items by the Tribunal, I do not find any justification to interfere. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation the claimant is entitled under the appellate order is entitled to be awarded as under:
For the loss of future income Rs. 1,15,000/- For medical expenditure towards nursing attendant, travelling expenses Rs. 10,000/- For injuries, pain and suffering and mental shock (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs. 20,000/- For physical disability in the sight of right eye and impairment of right ear''s hearing capacity Rs. 6,000/- For loss of normal enjoyment of life Rs. 8,000/- For loss of income over the period from 27.5.1989 to 14.6.1989, during which the claimant was hospitalised and bed-ridden Rs. 650/- In total Rs. 1,59,650/-
Thus, claimant (appellant) is entitled to Rs. 1,59,650/- as compensation. The rate of interest is to be increased which should be indicated in the operative portion of the order.
MFA No. 681/92 arising out of MVC 288/89 : PW 3 - Ravi, injured, is a claimant, who had made a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,94,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 21,500/- as total compensation, the details of which are as under:
Medical treatment and incidental items including nourishment, etc. Rs. 2,500/- Loss of earnings for three months at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month Rs. 3,000/- For injuries of physical pain, mental shock and suffering Rs. 14,000/- Temporary loss of enjoyment of life Rs. 2,000/-
It has been found that the Ravi (appellant) had been hospitalised from 28.5.1989 to 25.6.1989, for 28 days. In paragraph 24, the Tribunal has observed as under:
PW 4 - Dr. B.R. Tahsildar of McGann Hospital, Shimoga, has testified that he examined petitioner Ravi on 28.5.1989 and noticed the swelling and tenderness in his left thigh and the X-ray thereof revealed fracture of left femur. On 11.6.1989, conducted operation of petitioner''s left thigh and treated the fracture by open reduction and nail fixation. On 25.6.1989, petitioner was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend it after one month. On 8.12.1990, he visited the hospital for follow up treatment. PW 4, then examined the condition of petitioner and found his right lower limb shortened by half an inch and that he was limping. His hip joint adduction was limited by 15 degree and there was limitation of knee flexion by 10 degree. The said limping is a permanent disability in petitioner.
In this case in my opinion, the compensation awarded towards(sic) temporary loss of enjoyment has been too meagre. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should have been awarded for temporary loss of enjoyment of normal life. There appears to be some substance in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the claimant (appellant), as right lower (sic) has shortened by one inch. This malady, the claimant has to carry for the whole (sic) and under this head in my opinion, the appellant should have been awarded a (sic) impanation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. As regards medical expenditure, the bills (sic) expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,100/- or 1,080/-, as the claimant had been (sic) to the Hospital for 28 days. The compensation under this head needs to (sic) enhanced looking to the circumstances of the case and particularly not only (sic) amount of medical expenditure, but towards nourishment, etc. also, the appellant (sic) could have incurred expenditure. So under this head, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- ought (sic) have been allowed to the claimant (appellant) and I do hereby assess the (sic) mpensation under the head of expenditure made towards medical treatment, (sic) , etc., to Rs. 4,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/-. The appeal is thus, partly (sic) . The following amounts are admissible under the heads as under:
Expenditure on medical treatment, nourishment and other incidental items Rs. 4,000/- For loss of earnings for three months (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs. 3,000/- For injuries, pain and suffering Rs. 14,000/- For loss of enjoyment of life and deficiency caused by limping and shortening of legs Rs. 10,000/- In total Rs. 31,000/-
The rate of interest will be indicated later on.
M.F.A. No. 682/92 arising out of M.V.C.No. 240/89 : PW 5 - Kusuma -jured has filed the claim petition giving rise to appeal claiming damages to the (sic) of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of 5. 22,000/- as under:
(i) Expenditure on medical treatment and other incidental items Rs. 4,000/- (ii) For actual injuries, physical pain, mental shock and suffering Rs. 16,000/- (iii) temporary curtailment of normal enjoyment of life Rs. 2,000/-
Kusuma had the fracture of pelvic bones and as per evidence of PW 4 - (sic) . Tahsildar, she was treated for traction for four weeks. As per wound (sic) - Ex. P 196, the following injuries were found on her person :
Lacerated wound (R) elbow, 2" x 1" x 1/2".
Lacerated wound (R) forehead, 1" x 1/2 x 1/2."
The Tribunal found that as per Ex. P192, the claimant (appellant) did suffer the fracture of her pelvic bones. It has also been found that she has (sic) been recovered from the injuries. It has also been admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that she has also been married and enjoying the normal life, (sic) actual injuries caused like physical pain, mental shock and suffering, it has be (sic) mentioned earlier, she has been awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000/-. She had been (sic) ridden for 6 months and for 1 and 1/2 months, she had been inpatient in McGa Hospital. Considering this aspect of the matter in my opinion, the compensation which has been awarded for actual injuries, likely physical pain, suffering a mental shock appears to be insufficient. The amount she should have (sic) awarded is a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under this head and towards medical and (sic) incidental expenses, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- should have been allowed. Thus, award is modified and it is held that claimant-appellant is entitled to compensation with interest as under :
Expenditure on medical treatment and other incidental items Rs. 6,000/- For actual injuries like physical pain, mental shock and suffering Rs. 20,000/- temporary curtailment of normal enjoyment of life (As awarded by Tribunal) Rs. 2,000/- In total Rs. 28,000/-
M.F.A. No. 683 of 1992, is equal to M, V. C. 245 of 1989: Gangamma (sic) the claim for Rs. 71,000/-. She was a milk vendor and has produced the (sic) to show that she had been admitted in the Hospital as in patient from 275.198 (sic) 13.5.1989, in M.G. Hospital, Chikmangalur and thereafter from 30.5.1989, (sic) period of one month almost at McGann Hospital, Shimoga, for the (sic) injuries sustained by her in the accident. The evidence on record discloses that suffered fracture on lateral condoyle of a left tibia. The Tribunal had come to conclusion that the evidence on record consisting of PWs 6 and 4, supported medical evidence discloses and satisfactorily establish that Gangamma, did (sic) injuries described by the Dr. Tahsildar - PW 4, namely, contusion left knee 3 (sic) lacerated wound left side 2" x 2" x W skull; lacerated wound left leg, 3" bellowed knee 2" x 1" x 2 mm deep, and lacerated wound (R) elbow 1" x %" x 3 mm (sic) the fracture of lateral tibia and that she was confined to bed from 27.5.198 (sic) 4.7.1989, in the Hospitals at Chikmagalur and Shimoga. The Tribunal has (sic) the conclusion that there is no proof that Gangamma suffered any (sic) disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the appellant as under:
For expenditure on medical treatment Rs. 2,500/- Loss of 6 months earning at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month Rs. 1,800/- For injuries, physical pain and mental shock and suffering Rs.15,000/- temporary loss of enjoyment of life Rs. 1,500/-
25.1 have applied my mind to the contentions that have been rail
In my opinion, the loss of 6 months earning calculated at Rs. 300/- per month is too low. When an undisputed testimony discloses that her earning was Rs. 25/- to Rs. 50/- and then, on the lower side, income should have been taken not less than what has been indicated to be the lower income, unless anything to the contrary is shown. Applying this principle in my opinion, the six months loss of earning should have been calculated at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, for the present loss of earning for six months at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month, the claimant (appellant) would have been entitled to Rs. 4,500/-. Under the head of medical expenditure, nourishment and other incidental items, the compensation that has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- appears to me to be in-sufficient. In my opinion, atleast Rs. 5,000/- should have been awarded. Anyway, I award a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,500/-. The compensation that has been awarded for injuries, physical pain and suffering has been rightly assessed to Rs. 15,000 /-. But, the compensation awarded for temporary loss of normal enjoyment of life to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- appears to me to be insufficient and it is being fixed at Rs. 2,500/-. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part and the claimant will be entitled to compensation as under:
For medical expenditure and medical treatment Rs.5,500/- For present loss of earning Rs.4,500/- For injuries, pain, suffering and shock Rs.15,000/- For temporary loss of enjoyment of life Rs.2,500/- In total Rs.27,500/-
Thus the claimant (appellant in this appeal) will be entitled to get Rs. 27,500/- as compensation in total. Thus considered all the appeals are allowed in part. The appellants in all the appeals are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of application till the date of payment.
26(1). M.F.A. No. 680/1992, which arises from M. V.C. No. 214of 1989, is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to and are awarded total compensation of Rs. 88,400/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The liability for the payment of the compensation will be joint and several of all the respondents while primarily it is payable by respondent No. 2.
(2) M.F.A. No. 671 of 1992, which a rises from M.V.C .No. 311 of 1989 is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to and are awarded total compensation of Rs. 85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of the respondent No. 2, which shall be joint and severable.
(3) MFA No. 656/92 arising out of MVC No. 304 of 1989 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of the respondent No. 2, which shall be joint and severable.
(4) MFA No. 677 of 1992 is equal to MVC No. 246 of 1989, is allowed in part.
The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,100/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of the respondent No. 2, which shall be joint and severable.
(5) M.F.A No. 6789 of 1992 is equal to M.V.C. No. 250 of 19800 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,59,650/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date Of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of the respondent No. 2, which shall be joint and severable.
(6) M.F.A. No. 681 of 1992 arising out of M.V.C. No. 288 of 1989 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 31,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of respondent No. 2 which shall be joint and severable.
(7)M.F.A. No. 682 of 1992 arising out of M.V.C No. 240 of 1989 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 28,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of respondent No. 2, which shall be joint and severable.
(8) M.F. A. No. 683 of 1992 arising out of M.V.C. No. 245 of 1989 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to and is awarded total compensation of Rs. 27,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of full amount. The primary liability for the payment of the compensation will be that of respondent No. 2 which shall be join and severable.
Thus all the appeals are hereby allowed in part as mentioned above. The costs of this Court is made easy, but lower Court''s costs will be payable by respondents.