Nagamma and Others vs Ramesh and Others

A.S. Pachhapure, J.

The Corporation has filed MFA No. 30110/2011 challenging the finding on negligence, liability and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Veerabhadrappa in a motor vehicle accident, whereas the legal representatives of Veerabhadrappa have filed MFA No. 31970/2011, seeking enhancement.

The facts reveal that Veerabhadrappa (the deceased) was proceeding on Hero Honda motorcycle towards Maski and the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 36/F 519 came from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Thereby, Veerabhadrappa sustained severe injuries. His leg was amputated and later died on 11.07.2006. His legal representatives made a claim for compensation before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has recorded the evidence and dismissed the petition initially. There was an appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal and after recording the further evidence, under the impugned judgment and award, a sum of Rs. 4,09,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased holding that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the death of Veerabhadrappa was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Corporation has filed MFA No. 30110/2011 and the claimants have filed MFA No. 31970/2011.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The points that arise for my consideration in these appeals are,

Whether the death of Veerabhadrappa was due to the injuries sustained in the accident?

Whether there is any negligence on the part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident.

Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation? If so, to what extent?

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that there is no nexus between the injuries and death of Veerabhadrappa and that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. He also submits that the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and it needs enhancement.

As could be seen from the documents produced, Ex. P1 is the FIR, Ex. P2 is the complaint, Ex. P3 is the charge sheet and Ex. P4 is the spot mahazer. The accident was on the road in between Sindhanoor and Maski. The deceased was proceeding from Sindhanoor to Gugebal, whereas the bus came from the opposite direction. The complaint of this incident was filed against the driver of the bus. After the investigation, the police field charge-sheet against the driver of the said bus. The spot mahazer reveals that the spot was at a distance of 20 feet from the place where the motorcycle had fallen. From these circumstances, it could be inferred that the bus came in a high speed and hit the motorcycle. Thereby, it was thrown at a distance of 20 feet.

Though it is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, it is relevant to note that no complaint was filed by the driver of the bus against the injured/deceased immediately after the accident. At least he could have filed a complaint to the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. if the police did not receive his complaint. This conduct of the bus driver would lead to the only inference that there was negligence on his part. This inference could be drawn to support the version of the claimants. From these materials on record, it has to be held that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the bus driver and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed.

The deceased Veerabhadrappa had sustained the fracture of right leg. There was a crush injury. His right leg was amputated and thereafter it is claimed by the claimants that he died on 11.07.2006 i.e., after four months of the incident. To substantiate this fact, the claimants have examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 - the doctors. They have also produced the documents in support of their version that the death was due to the injures in the accident. Ex. P5 is the injury certificate. It reveals the nature of the injury suffered, the fracture of the right leg, the crush injury suffered etc. The doctors had stated that the injuries are grievous in nature. Ex. P6 is the death certificate and it reveals that on 11.07.2006, Veerabhadrappa died.

Ex. P7 is a certificate issued by the Government Doctor of the Primary Health Centre at Pamankallur and it reveals that on 10.07.2006, he examined Veerabhadrappa and found that there was infection on the right leg and he was suffering from fever. Ex. P8 is also a medical certificate issued by the said doctor and he had referred the injured Veerabhadrappa to the higher centre. The other records relate to the discharge summary in respect of the treatment given to the injured are produced at Ex. P10.

From the oral evidence of the doctors and documents, it would reveal that there was an amputation. Subsequently, the injury got infected. The deceased suffered fever, which is also a sign of infection and it may be the reason for his death. It is on 10.07.2006, he was examined and on the next day, he said to have been died. So there is a nexus between the injury and death of the deceased.

The doctor has stated that the infection also be one of the cause of the death. When the other cause is not made available in the evidence of the claimants, at the instance of the respondents, the cause put forth by the doctors will have to be accepted, as it is a summary proceeding and the material placed on record probablize the possibility of his death due to the injury sustained in the accident.

The deceased was a labourer. His income has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month. In respect of the accidents of the year 2006, generally a sum of Rs. 3,750/- is considered as income of a labourer. So, there is no impleadment to accept the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,750/- per month. Deducting 1/3 of it towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16, the net compensation payable towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,750/- less 1/3 = Rs. 2,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,80,000/-. Deducting a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 96,000/- on this head.

Claimant No. 2 is the wife of the deceased and she is 32 years old. There is nothing on record to show that she has remarried. She has lost the company of her husband for her lifetime. Therefore, she has to be paid compensation towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium. Deducting a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, claimant No. 2 is awarded an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- on this head.

Claimant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is payable to her towards loss of love and affection.

The injured was treated in the hospital. His leg was amputated. He had to pay some medical expenses. So, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the probable period of treatment and the expenses to be incurred, though no documents have been produced, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses.

Only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. An additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be just and reasonable on this head.

Thereby, the additional compensation payable to the claimants would be as under:

The claimants are entitled to the aforesaid sum with interest at 9% p.a.

Therefore, point Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in affirmative and point No. 2 is answered in negative.

Consequently, MFA No. 30110/2011 filed by the Corporation is dismissed and MFA No. 31970/2011 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.

The appellants in MFA No. 31970/2011 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,71,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, they are not entitled for interest over the delayed period of 328 days that occurred in filing the appeal.

Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is apportioned in favour of claimant No. 2 - the wife of the deceased and the remaining amount is apportioned in favour of claimant No. 1 - the mother of the deceased.

Out of the amount apportioned in favour of claimant No. 2, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years and the remaining shall be paid to her.

The amount in deposit in MFA No. 30110/2011 is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.