AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—These two appeals are filed challenging the correctness of the judgment and award dated 01.06.2006 passed in MVC No. 3202/2002 on the file of the MACT (SCCH-2), Bangalore.
Appeal in MFA No. 13460/2006 is filed by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short ''BMTC''), seeking to restrict the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 23,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and Appeal in MFA No. 12887/2006 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
In these two appeals, for the sake of convenience: the parties are referred to by their ranking in the Tribunal.
The brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:
The Petitioner/claimant is one of the passengers in the bus belonging to the Respondent-BMTC bearing registration No. KA.01.F.238. On 02.05.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., when the claimant was travelling in the said bus, the same met with an accident causing injuries to him and also several other passengers travelling in the said bus, at the relevant point of time. The accident in question and the injuries suffered by the claimant in the said accident are not in dispute. The Petitioner/claimant has suffered fracture of left side mandible. The said injury is also not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the claimant was admitted to Sanjeevini Nursing Home on 02.05.2002 and he was inpatient in the said hospital till 10.05.2002, where he has undergone surgery for re-fixing the fractured mandible.
Thereafter, the claimant filed petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- against the Respondent-BMTC. In the Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the claimant/Petitioner was clubbed with several, other claim petitions filed by other injured in the same accident. Common issues were framed, common evidence was recorded, wherein the claimant herein was examined as PW.1. He produced 3 documents - Exs.P5 to P7 in support of his claim. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate, Ex.P6 is the discharge summary and Ex.P7 is the medical bill. It is also the case of the claimant that as on the date of accident, he was aged about 23 years and he was a student. By producing Exs.P5 and P6, the claimant has proved that he has suffered fracture to the left side of his mandible and that he has undergone surgery in Sanjeevini Nursing Home, where he was inpatient for 9 days from 02.05.2C02 to 10.05.2002 and he has also placed on record the bill for having paid the medical charges to * the extent of Rs. 30,130/- to Sanjeevini Nursing Home. According to claimant, apart from this expenditure, he has also spent some amount for medicines and other expenses, for which he has no bill.
On appreciation of the evidence and documents available on record, the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 23,000/- payable with interest at 7% pa. from the date of evidence i.e. 10.02.2004 till the date of realisation. The claimant being aggrieved by the same, has come up in appeal in MFA No. 12887/200$ claiming that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is On the lower side and also alleging that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability to pay interest from the date of evidence instead of awarding the same from the date of petition.
It is seen in the judgment that the compensation awarded is Rs 23,000/- whereas, the award drawn is for Rs. 53,000/- payable with interest at 7% p.a.. This variation in the judgment and award is being challenged by the Respondent-BMTC by filing appeal in MFA No. 13460/2006. Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment and award, they are clubbed and taken-up for consideration together and on hearing the counsel appearing for claimant-Petitioner as well as Respondent-BMTC, the following points arise for consideration.
i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- payable with interest at 7% p.a. as stated in its judgment dated 01.06.2006 or awarded compensation of Rs. 53,000/- payable with interest at 7% as evidenced in the award drawn pursuant to the judgment passed in MVC No. 3202/2002?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal calls for enhancement in this appeal?
After hearing the counsel on both sides and on perusal of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court has answered the second point in the affirmative and first point as under, for the following reasons:
The fact of accident involving the bus bearing No. KA.01.F.238 belonging to Respondent-BMTC and at the relevant point of time, the Petitioner was inmate of the said bus are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident, the claimant has suffered fracture to his left mandible and for which he has undergone treatment in Sanjeevini Nursing Home between 02.05.2002 to 10.05.2002. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has undergone surgery for re-fixing his fractured mandible. The Tribunal having accepted the same, while awarding compensation, has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 3,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of education, which should have been ''loss of Academic Year'' not loss of education. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of amenity. So, in all, the compensation works out to a sum of Rs. 23,000/-. But, while drawing up of the award, by mistake, the compensation of Rs. 23,000/- was shown as Rs. 53,000/-.
On going through the documents available on record, which are marked as Exs.P5 to P7, more particularly, the documents at Ex.P7, which is the cash bill issued by Sanjeevini Nursing Home on 10.05.2002 at the time of discharge of the claimant from the hospital it has collected a sum of Rs. 30,130/-. It appears the Tribunal while drawing up of the award has included the amount of the said bill also, when there is no specific award for payment of the same. Therefore, there is some discrepancy which has crept-in in the award while calculation of the compensation required to be awarded to the claimant. Hence, the same is reassessed in the light of the documentary evidence available on record.
The claimant is a student aged about 23 years as on the date of accident and the accident in question has resulted in fracture of his left mandible. Admittedly, he was inpatient for a period of 9 days from 02.05.2002 to 10.05.2002. During the said period, he has undergone surgery for setting right the injury suffered by him. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head ''pain and suffering'' at Rs. 12,000/- is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- However, the compensation awarded under the heads ''conveyance, attendants, nutrition and other incidental charges at Rs. 3,000/-and ''loss of Academic Year'' at Rs. 2,000/- is just and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal.
It is further seen that though there is no medical evidence to support that the fracture of mandible will have long term effect on the claimant, considering difficulty in consumption of food, talking and also other aspects, certain amount is required to be awarded towards loss of amenities, which is not compensated by awarding reasonable amount by the Tribunal. Hence, an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- is required to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. In spite of the claimant producing the cash bill for having paid a sum of Rs. 30,130/- towards hospital charges, no compensation is paid either towards reimbursement of the said cash bill or towards medical charges i.e., for the treatment taken by the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 32,000/- is required to be awarded under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, under the revised calculation of compensation, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 67,000/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 23,000/- in the judgment and showing the same as Rs. 53,000/- in the award.
Insofar as the interest payable to the claimant on the said amount is concerned, this Court would like to revise the same to 6% from 7% taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, where, under similar circumstances, it is held by the Apex Court that the right percentage of interest would be 6% p.a.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No. 12887/2006 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 23,000/- to Rs. 67,000/-with interest at 6% pa payable from the date of petition till the date of realization. Further the appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA No. 13460/06 which pertains to seeking clarification of the award amount and for modification of rate of interest, is also partly allowed and the rate of interest is reduced to 6% p.a. from 7%pa.
The Respondent-BMTC shall deposit the revised compensation amount within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in fixed deposit for 3 years in the name of claimant in any Nationalised Bank with right to receive interest periodically. Balance Rs. 27,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claim on deposit of the compensation amount by the Respondent-BMTC.