Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7632 of 2002 (MVC)

Advocates

For the Appellant: D.S. Hosmath, Advocate.

Judges

S.R Nayak
Ram Mohan Reddy, JJ.

Acts

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act),

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion delivered by Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal arises from a motor accident claim (MVC No. 1254 of 2000) initiated by the father (natural guardian) of a minor, Kumar Eranna, who suffered grievous injuries on 19-4-2000 when a bus (Regn. No. KA-25-F-937) allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent and belonging to the 2nd respondent hit the minor. The accident resulted in amputation of the claimant's left leg above the knee (described in the judgment at different places as amputation below the knee / knee dis-articulation in relation to the injuries sustained and treatment). The claimant was treated as an inpatient (including at KMC Hospital, Hubli) and discontinued his studies thereafter.

The claimant initially sought compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which, after framing issues and recording evidence (claimant's father as P.W.1; two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3; and 13 documents as Exs. P.1–P.13), found actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded Rs. 2,27,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. Respondents filed written statements denying the claim but did not adduce oral evidence or produce documents.

The claimant (through his father) appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the quantum of compensation. The appeal was heard by this Court which preserved the MACT's finding of negligence and addressed only the quantum of compensation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the MACT's award of Rs. 2,27,000/- under different heads is just, reasonable and within the contemplation of the Motor Vehicles Act in the facts and circumstances of this case.
If the award is not just and reasonable, what is the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to the claimant under the permissible heads?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by learned counsel Sri D.S. Hosmath)

The MACT's award of Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses is inadequate and should be enhanced.
The MACT ought to have taken Rs. 30,000/- per annum as the earning capacity of the injured and computed loss of earning capacity at 100% (rather than taking Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applying 6% functional disability).
The multiple applied by the MACT ('15') is incorrect and the correct multiplier should be '18'.
The award of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of amenities is inadequate and should be enhanced.
Counsel relied on earlier decisions of this Court and other authorities (including Fakkirappa v. Smt. Yallawwa and other English and Indian cases) to support a larger award on various heads.

Respondents' Position

The respondents filed written statements denying the claim before the MACT but did not produce oral evidence or documents in support of their stance before the MACT. At the appellate stage they remained unrepresented.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Fakkirappa v. Smt. Yallawwa, M.F.A. No. 191 of 2002 (MVC)	Principles and norms governing determination of compensation in bodily injury cases — consideration of loss of earning capacity, expenses, loss of amenities and the need for substantial (not token) awards; comparative assessment of similar injuries.	The Court referred to that decision for guidance on methodology and comparative awards (noting a prior award for a child with amputation below knee). The Court used the approach and comparative reasoning in assessing compensation in the present case.
Thomas v. British Railways Board, 1977 ACJ 222 (CA-England)	Emphasis that the greatest element of damage in such cases is pain and suffering and loss of ordinary pleasures and conveniences associated with health and mobility; award should enable some material offset for disability.	Cited to support the proposition that compensation must address pain, suffering and diminished life pleasures and to inform the broad approach to quantification.
Birckett v. Hayes, 1983 ACJ 699 (CA-England)	Judicial discretion and the need to award lump sums for past and future pain, suffering and loss of amenities; the future often more significant than the past.	Cited to justify awarding a lump sum that covers both past and future pain and loss of amenities.
Manly v. Rug By Portland Cement Company Limited, C.A. No. 286 of 1952 (unreported)	Explanation of the concept "loss of amenities" — examples of how life pleasures and activities are diminished by serious injuries.	Used to clarify the meaning of "loss of amenities" when assessing compensation for diminished life activities and pleasures.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 3 Kar. L.J. 39 (Apex Court reference in text)	Observation that assessment necessarily involves hypothesis; courts must consider the overall picture and avoid niggardly awards; law values life and limb generously.	Cited to stress that awards should not be meagre and that the overall picture is decisive in assessing compensation.
K. Jagannath Rai v. Gangarathna C. Bai, 2003 3 KCCR 2387 (DB)	Reiteration of the "restitution in integrum" principle and enumeration of heads of compensation in personal injury cases (pain & suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning capacity, medical treatment, etc.).	Relied upon to frame the permissible heads of compensation and the objective of placing the injured, as far as money can, in the position he would have been but for the injury.
Imtiaz v. National Insurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 1033 (SC)	Authority indicating that an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- for serious injuries may be on the lower side; used as guidance on appropriate quantum for amputation in serious cases.	The Court considered this observation in fixing Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for amputation of the leg below the knee and knee dis-articulation in the present case.
M.F.A. No. 191 of 2002 (referenced earlier as Fakkirappa)	Earlier assessment in similar circumstances included an estimate of the cost range for an artificial leg (Rs. 17,000 to Rs. 32,000) and awards for replacement prosthesis in a growing child.	The Court applied the same costing approach (adopted Rs. 20,000 as an indicative cost per prosthesis) and used that benchmark in fixing future medical expenses and replacement of artificial leg costs, awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- for future medical expenses in total.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by (i) accepting the MACT's finding of actionable negligence (which was not challenged on appeal), (ii) reviewing the factual matrix and the evidence placed before the MACT, and (iii) reassessing the quantum of compensation on each head in light of documentary and oral evidence and the legal principles and precedents cited.

Evidence and injury assessment:

The claimant was aged 7 at the time of the accident and sustained multiple injuries including traumatic scalp swelling, a crushed and fractured right leg, chest trauma and abrasion to the left thigh. Two injuries were grievous; two were simple (wound certificate Ex. P.4; medical records and discharge card Ex. P.5).
The claimant was an inpatient at KMC Hospital, Hubli, for about three months and ten days; the right leg was amputated below the knee and skin grafting was performed. Blood transfusions and prolonged inpatient care were recorded in medical records.
Dr. Hiremath (P.W.3) issued a disability certificate (Ex. P.10) stating 80% permanent disability to the whole body.
P.W.1 (father) gave evidence of occupation, residence and produced medical bills and school certificate (Ex. P.17) confirming age and schooling; he testified that the claimant discontinued studies as a result of injury.

Head-wise analysis and adjustments made by the Court:

Pain and suffering: The MACT had awarded Rs. 50,000/-. Having regard to the grievous injuries, amputation and prolonged treatment, the Court found no reason to interfere and upheld Rs. 50,000/-.
Medical expenses: Though the father claimed Rs. 55,000/-, produced medical bills totaling Rs. 8,352.25 (Ex. P.7). The MACT awarded Rs. 10,000/-, which the Court found on the lower side given prolonged hospitalization, amputations, skin grafting and transfusions. The Court increased this head to Rs. 25,000/- to cover medical expenses, special food and nutrition.
Attendant and conveyance: MACT had awarded Rs. 4,500/- (attendant) and Rs. 2,000/- (conveyance). The Court retained Rs. 4,500/- for attendant charges but increased conveyance to Rs. 5,000/- (noting distances and multiple trips between Torangatti and Hubli).
Loss of amenities / future unhappiness: The MACT awarded Rs. 25,000/-, which the Court found inadequate for a 7‑year‑old who will live with permanent impairment. Considering lifelong consequences (frustration, inconvenience, diminished prospects of marriage, loss of everyday pleasures), the Court increased this head to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Loss of marriage prospects: The Court held that amputation and knee dis-articulation would prejudice marriage prospects and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
Amputation (amputation of leg below knee and knee dis-articulation): Citing Imtiaz and considering severity, the Court fixed Rs. 1,50,000/- as just compensation for the amputation and dis-articulation.
Future medical expenses (replacement of artificial limb until age 22): The Court relied on the earlier MFA decision's estimated cost range for an artificial leg (Rs. 17,000–32,000) and for lack of concrete evidence adopted a notional Rs. 20,000 per prosthesis estimate. Taking into account growth and replacement needs and uncertainties, the Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses for replacement of artificial limb until the claimant attains 22 years of age.
Loss of earning capacity/expectancy: The MACT had awarded Rs. 1,35,000/- (notional income Rs. 15,000 × multiplier 15 × 60% disability). The Court reasoned that because it had awarded substantial compensation under other heads (loss of amenities, amputation, future medical expenses), the award for loss of earning capacity should be scaled down to avoid double compensation for overlapping consequences. The Court therefore awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life.
Interest and costs: The MACT had awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, and the Court maintained the 9% interest rate as conforming to trends in Apex Court and the State Court judgments. The appeal was allowed in part with costs and the advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 1,500/-.

The Court emphasized making awards that are just, reasonable and adequate within the Act and avoided tokenism; it used comparative authority and prior bench decisions for benchmarks (especially in respect of prosthesis costs and awards in somewhat similar factual matrices).

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed in part: the impugned award of Rs. 2,27,000/- is modified and, in substitution thereof, the Court awards total compensation of Rs. 5,84,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition until payment. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The claimant (minor represented by his father) is entitled to the enhanced lump sum of Rs. 5,84,500/- distributed under the specific heads enumerated by the Court (pain and suffering; loss of amenities; loss of marriage prospects; amputation; loss of expectation of life; medical and attendant/conveyance costs; future medical expenses for prosthesis replacement).
The respondents (owner of vehicle and driver) remain liable to pay the revised compensation amount with interest (9% p.a.) and the fixed advocate's fee.

The opinion does not purport to lay down any novel principle of law; it applies established principles and precedents to the particular facts and adjusts the quantum to ensure that the award is reasonable and adequate in the circumstances. The Court did not indicate that a new precedent was being created; rather, it relied on earlier cases for comparative and methodological guidance.

Annex: Breakdown of Award as Ordered by the Court

Head	Amount (Rs.)
Pain and suffering	50,000
Loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration etc.	1,00,000
Loss of marriage prospects	50,000
Amputation of leg below the knee and knee dis-articulation	1,50,000
Loss of expectation of life	50,000
Medical expenses inclusive of special food and nutrition	25,000
Attendant and conveyance charges	9,500
Future medical expenses towards replacement of artificial leg until age 22	1,50,000
Total	5,84,500
Interest	9% p.a. from date of petition till payment
Advocate's fee	1,500

Show full summary ...

Kumar Iranna v. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla And Another

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.:— In a bodily injury case, the injured, a minor represented by his father, natural guardian, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), calling in question the judgment and award dated 17-9-2002, passed in MVC No. 1254 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saundatti (for short, ‘MACT’).

2. Facts in brief, noticed, for decision making are:

On 19-4-2000, at about 13.45 hours, while Kumar Eranna son of Basappa Kurahatti was walking on the left side of the road in Kasaba lane, near Jogannavar complex on Nargund-Saundatti road of Nargund town, the motor vehicle being a bus bearing registration No. KA-25-F-937, belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent, at a high-speed and in a rash and negligent manner, from Sankdal side, dashed against the said Kumar Eranna. Due to the said accident, the said Kumar Eranna sustained grievous injuries, resulting in amputation of his left leg above the knee. The injured a student studying in 2nd standard, resident of Kurahatti, Ramdurg Taluk of District Belgaum, was admitted to the Government Hospital, Saundatti, for treatment and thereafter to KMC hospital, Hubli for further treatment as an inpatient. Due to the amputation of the left leg, the injured discontinued his studies. On the aforesaid facts, the injured represented by his father filed a claim petition under the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which petition, was numbered as MVC No. 1254 of 2000. Respondents 1 and 2, on notice, filed separate written statements denying the claim of the injured.

3. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed three issues, recorded the depositions of the father of the claimant as P.W 1 and two other witnesses P.Ws 2 and 3. On behalf of the claimant, 13 documents were produced and marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 13. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence or produce any documents in support of their pleading. The MACT, appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, returned a finding of actionable negligence on the driver of the bus, causing the accident, resulting in grievous bodily injuries to the claimant. The MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,27,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, under the following heads:

Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of earning capacity Rs. 1,35,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Conveyance and attendance Rs. 6,500/-

4. Being aggrieved of the judgment and award, the claimant/injured has preferred this appeal. Since the finding recorded by the MACT with regard to actionable negligence is not assailed before us, there is no need for us to review that part of the finding recorded by the MACT.

5. Sri D.S Hosmath, learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. He would also contend that the MACT ought to have taken Rs. 30,000/- per annum as the earning capacity of the injured and the loss of earning capacity at 100% instead of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and 6% functional disability, which in the established facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous. In addition, he would also contend that the application of multiple ‘15’ is incorrect and what is required to be applied is multiple ‘18’. Lastly, he would contend that the award of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities is inadequate and requires to be enhanced.

6. Though the notice of the appeal was served on the respondents, they have remained unrepresented.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the only question for determination in this appeal, is whether the award of Rs. 2,27,000/- Tinder different heads, in the facts, circumstances of the case and evidence on record could be considered to be just, reasonable and within the contemplation of the Act? If not, what is the just and reasonable compensation, the appellant is entitled to?

8. Sri D.S Hosmath, learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the principles and norms governing the determination of compensation in bodily injury cases, as noticed by us, in our judgment of Fakkirappa v. Smt. Yallawwa . M.F.A No. 191 of 2002 MVC, DD, wherein one of us, (S.R Nayak, J.), speaking to the bench observed thus:

“5. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages, the amount of damages varies according to gravity of the injury. Deprivation of injuries may bring with it three consequences, namely, (i) loss of earning and earning capacity, (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself, and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures of living. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, the Court has to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Therefore, while considering deprivation, the Court should have regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. In awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation awarded by the Court should be substantial and it should not be merely token damages. Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and Sons, pointed out this aspect in the following words:

“Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparative injuries should be compensated by comparable awards”.”

9. It is no doubt, true, this Court after noticing the judgments of the English Courts and those of the Apex Court applied the same to the facts of the said case, where a minor child of four years, sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in amputation of the lower left limb, below the knee, having permanent disability of 62-65% awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects; Rs. 1,50,000/- towards amputation of leg below the knee and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses for replacing the artificial limp upto the age 20, of the child. Sri D.S Hosmath, learned Counsel for the appellant would persuade us to take the similar view in the award of compensation in the present appeal contending that the facts in the present appeal are almost identical with that of the case decided by this Bench.

10. In addition to the principles and norms with which we were guided in the decision making in the aforesaid M.F.A No. 191 of 2002 (MVC), we may usefully refer to the following observations: Scraman L.J in Thomas v. British Railways Board . 1977 ACJ 222 CA-England., which reads thus:

“… The greatest element of damage in a case such as this is the pain and suffering and loss of ordinary pleasures and convenience associated with health and mobile limbs. All that the Court can do is to award such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to acquire some material possessions or develop the life style which will off-set to some extent her terrible disability”.

11. In Birckett v. Hayes . 1983 ACJ 699 CA - England., the decision has been cited:

“There is nothing to guide us but the feeling of what is fair…. the Judge has to award compensation for the past and also for the future pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The future that lies ahead, beyond the date of trial, is often of more consequence than the past. The Judge awards a lump sum on the date of trial to cover all”.

12. As Prof. Flemmings James Junior (Vol. 4, 1956, Cornnel Law Quarterly P. 582 at 605) has stated “If a long period had lapsed, between the accident and the trial and a material change in living cost has occurred during that time, necessary adjustments have to be made”.

13. The words “Loss of amenities” have been explained in a vivid manner in the oft quoted unreported case Manly v. Rug By Portland Cement Company Limited . C.A No. 286 of 1952., referred to in Kemp and Kemp 1982, para 3.001, page 3001 by Burkitt L.J, as follows.—

“There is a head of damage which is sometimes called loss of amenities, the man made blind by the accident will no longer be able to see the familiar things he has seen all his life; the man who has had both legs removed and will never go upon his walking excursions - thins of that kind - loss of amenities”.

14. The Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas . 1994 3 Kar. L.J 39 SC, observed thus:

“Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region, arithmetic as a good servant but a bad master since there are so often many imponderables. In every case “It is the overall picture that matters” and the Court must try to assess as it can the loss suffered”. “The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales”.

15. This Court in the case of K. Jagannath Rai v. Gangarathna C. Bai . 2003 3 KCCR 2387 DB., one of us, S.R Nayak, J., speaking to the other co-ordinate Division Bench observed thus:

“The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. This principle is sometimes referred to as “restitution in integrum”. However, no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered human frame.

Though there are difficulties and uncertainties in assessing damages for personal injuries, that fact should not preclude an assessment as best as can, in the circumstances be made. In personal injury cases, the two main elements to be considered are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. In personal injury cases compensation can be given for.—

(i) pain and suffering; (ii) loss of amenities; (iii) shortened expectation of life, if any; (iv) loss of earning or loss of earning capacity, or in some cases, for both; and (v) medical treatment and other special damages”.

16. Keeping in mind the aforestated principles and norms, we now proceed to examine the facts of this case and the award of compensation by the MACT. The injured/claimant, a male child, aged 7 years sustained the following bodily injuries in the accident, as set out in the wound certificate Ex. P. 4:

“1. Traumatic swelling over scalp on its middle part;

2. Crushed injury of right leg, right leg bone fractured 6″ × 3″ × 1½″;

3. Trauma over chest; and

4. Abrasion over left thigh 3″ × ½.″.”.

17. Injuries 1 and 2 are said to be grievous in nature while injuries 3 and 4 are simple. The injured was an inpatient in KMC hospital, Hubli, for a period of three months ten days i.e, from 19-4-2000 to 31-7-2000, (luring which period, on 20-4-2000, the right leg of the claimant was amputated below the knee and skin grafting was done on 13-7-2000. In the course of treatment, the medical records reveal, that blood transmission was done on few occasions. On discharge, the claimant was advised to go for an artificial lower limb, get training and stump care.

18. P.W 3-Dr. Hiremath Mallinath Gurusidda Shastry, Orthopedic Surgeon of KIMs Hospital, testified to the injuries sustained, the treatment extended at KIMs hospital and the contents of the discharge card Ex. P. 5 as well as the case sheets. The said doctor has issued the disability certificate at Ex. P. 10 in which he opines that the claimant/injured sustained 80% permanent disability to the whole body.

19. The evidence of father of the claimant who examined himself as P.W 1 establishes that he and his family members being agricultural coolies are residents of Torangatti, Ramdurg Taluk, Belgaum District corroborated by the certificate Ex. P. 9 issued by the Grama Panchayat of Torangatti village. The said witness, produced medical records, medical bills and receipts for having paid attendant charges etc. He also produced Ex. P. 17 the certificate issued by the Higher Primary Kannada School, Torangatti, recording the date of birth of the claimant as 30th July, 1993 and that he was studying in 2nd standard as on the date of the accident. He has deposed to the fact that due to the injury sustained, resulting in amputation of the leg of his son, the injured discontinued his studies in the school.

20. Having regard to the two grievous injuries and two simple injuries sustained in the accident, resulting in the amputation of the right leg above the knee, including knee dis-articulation and the prolonged treatment as an inpatient for more than 3 months, the MACT was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and mental agony. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the said finding.

21. The father of the injured claimed to have spent Rs. 55,000/- towards medical treatment but however, produced 28 medical bills as at Ex. P. 7 totalling to Rs. 8,352.25 ps. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, which in the circumstances appears to be on the lower side. Having regard to the facts that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of 3½ months, underwent blood transfusion on few occasion, amputation of the right leg below the knee with knee disarticulation and skin grafting on to the stump, it is but reasonable that the claimant might have spent a considerable sum of money towards medical procedures. We consider it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses, special food and nutrition.

22. The MACT awarded Rs. 4,500/- towards attendant charges as shown in the receipt Ex. P. 6 produced by P.W 1. The award under this head does not require any enhancement. The award of Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance is unjust. The appellant a resident of Torangatti village being a minor, with the nature of injuries sustained, it is possible that the parents and relatives of the appellant would have had to travel between Torangatti and Hubli on several occasions. The distance between the said two places, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, is about 150 kms. We think it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance.

23. The award of Rs. 25,000/- towards future unhappiness and loss of amenities cannot be justified, particularly, in view of the fact that the injured aged 7 years will have to live with his impairment for the rest of his life. The claimant having sustained grievous injuries in the accident resulting in amputation of the leg, will cause frustration, discomfort, disappointment, inconvenience etc., and it will also diminish the prospects of marriage thereby denying him the joy of life which he would have otherwise enjoyed but for the impairment. It is beyond cavil of doubt that no amount of compensation would restore the loss of limb, much less the damage caused to the body frame. The Courts are enjoined with the duty to award compensation which is just, reasonable, adequate and within the contemplation of the Act. Having regard to the permanent injuries caused to the body frame of an young child, with which he has to live for his entire lifetime, we think it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, happiness, frustration etc., and we accordingly award the said sum.

24. It is not denied nor can it be denied that the amputation of the lower limb below the knee and disarticulation of the knee would seriously prejudice the prospects of marriage of the claimant when he grows up. The claimant is entitled to be compensated towards such loss or diminition in marriage prospects. It would be unfair if no compensation is awarded under the said head. We therefore award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects.

25. In the case of Imtiaz v. National Insurance Company Limited . 2001 ACJ 1033 SC., the Apex Court opined that even a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in that case was on a lower side. Having noticed the injuries and the amputation of the limb, we are of the considered view that an award, in the least, in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards amputation of the leg below the knee and disarticulation of the knee would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly award Rs. 1,50,000/- towards amputation of leg below the knee and knee dis-articulation.

26. The injured is advised a prosthesis, secure training and stump care. It will not be irrational or unreasonable to presume that a boy aged 7 years growing up into adulthood will cause changes in the bone structure, in which event, the artificial limb will be required to be replaced every year. Though, we do not find any assistance or aid from the impugned judgment and award as to what would be the cost of artificial leg, we have in identical circumstances, in M.F.A No. 191 of 2002 (cited supra), held that the cost of artificial leg would be in the range of Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 32,000/-. Even in this case, no concrete evidence is forthcoming, we think, it appropriate to apply the same costing for artificial leg as is done in the aforesaid case, at Rs. 20,000/-, keeping in mind that the growth of the boy during next 20 years would not be uniform, there can be no necessity to replace artificial leg every year. Also allowing for some improbables in life, we think it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as just compensation towards future medical expenses.

27. The MACT awarded Rs. 1,35,000/- towards loss of earning capacity taking the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- since the claimant is a non-earning member, applying multiple ‘15’ and disability at 60% arrived at Rs. 1,35,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. This Court having awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards amputation of the leg, the award towards loss of expectancy or loss of earning capacity requires to be scaled down. In this view of the matter as we have awarded reasonable and adequate compensation under various other heads permissible in bodily injury cases, we think it just and reasonable to award Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life.

28. The MACT awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment, which is in conformity with the recent trends reflected by the judgments of the Apex Court and those of this Court. Therefore, there is no need to enhance the rate of interest.

29. In the result and for the reasons set out supra, we allow the appeal in part, with costs and in substitution of the impugned award, we award Rs. 5,84,500/- under the following heads.

Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration etc., Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Amputation of leg below the knee and knee dis-articulation Rs. 1,50,000/- Loss of expectation of life Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses inclusive of Special food and nutrition Rs. 25,000/- Attendant and conveyance charges Rs. 9,500/- Future medical expenses towards replacement of artificial leg until he attains the age of 22 years Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 5,84,500/-

30. With interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.

31. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-.

Kumar Iranna v. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla And Another

Structured Summary of the Opinion delivered by Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by learned counsel Sri D.S. Hosmath)

Respondents' Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Annex: Breakdown of Award as Ordered by the Court

Kumar Iranna v. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla And Another

Comments