AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Kalaburagi (for brevity Tribunal) in MVC No.778/2014.
The appellant of MFA No.201413/2017 is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded as inadequate, the Corporation/NEKRTC/the appellant in MFA No.201245/2017 is assailing the quantum of compensation as exorbitant.
Briefly stated:
The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal contending that on 08.05.2014 during the night hours, the offending vehicle/KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1921 owned by the Corporation was driven by it''s driver dashed against him while he was standing by the side of the bus, thereby he suffered fracture of distal part of his left tibia. He was treated in the Government Hospital as in-patient for ten days and underwent surgery. After the discharge from the hospital, he has taken treatment by the private doctor. He has incurred medical expenses of more than Rs.1 lakh and still requires Rs.1 Lakh towards further medical expenses. Jurisdictional police have registered a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle. He was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and was in hotel business earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claim was contested by the Insurer.
The Tribunal on over all consideration of the material, has awarded the compensation as below:
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000-00
Medical expenses Rs. 330-00
Attendant & conveyance charges Rs. 2,000-00
Loss of future income Rs.1,62,000-00
Total compensation Rs.1,89,330-00
Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned
counsel for the Corporation submits that though it is a case of injury, the Tribunal erroneously applied principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh and others V/s. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 AIR (Civil) 662 and added loss of future prospects at 50% as if it is a death case and worked out the loss of future income at Rs.1,62,000/- which is most erroneous way of computation. Hence, the impugned judgment requires to be interfered.
Sri. Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in MFA No.201413/2017 in reply submits that the claimant though runs a small hotel in his village, he is a BPL card holder. Though he had undergone surgery, he had not maintained all the medical bills. Tribunal ought to have awarded at the least Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. No amount is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period and towards loss of amenity. The amount awarded towards attendant and conveyance charges is on the lower side. However, learned counsel would fairly submit that in the case of injury, awarding compensation towards loss of future prospects does not arise.
In the light of the above submissions, it percolates to the point that it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal in considering the loss of future prospects at 50% while assessing the loss of future income arising out of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant during the accident. As per the evidence of the Doctor, it was a mal-united fracture of lower third shaft of right fibula. When the claimant was examined for assessment of disability, it was found that he was suffering mild degree limited right ankle movements at 6.75%, partial difficulty to squat at 5% and mal union of fracture and grade II pain leg at 6%. Thus, the disability was assessed at 17% in reference to the right lower limb. That being so, in the usual course, the disability to the right lower limb in reference to the whole body should have been assessed at 6% and the Tribunal has taken it at 10%, which is on a little higher side.
It is also to be noticed that loss of amenity and loss of earning during laid up period are lost sight of while computing compensation. Though there is no medical evidence to the effect that the claimant may require future medical expenses, considering the fact that he underwent surgery and a implant is inserted at the fracture situ and at any time it may cause trouble, it is in the interest of justice to award Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. Considering the date of accident it is not out of possibilities he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month and on the said amount, loss of income during laid up period and loss of future income has to be worked. Though there are documentary proof about medical expenses, awarding Rs.10,000/- under the said head is not out of place. By awarding Rs.5,000/- towards attendant and conveyance charges and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, the compensation is reassessed as under:
Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
Attendant and conveyance Charges Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of future income due to disability (7,500x12x15x6%) Rs.81,000/-
Loss of amenity Rs.25,000/-
Loss of income during laid Up period Rs.22,500/-
Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.1,83,500/-
Looking from the other angle, it is not warranted to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Registry is directed to transmit the statutory amount in deposit to the concerned Tribunal along with records forthwith.
Registry to show the name of Sri. Sanjeev Patil, as for the respondent in MFA No.201245/2017.