Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

MFA 1131/2011, MFA 1132/2011, MFA 1133/2011, M.F.A No. 1131 of 2011 (MV) in M.F.A Nos. 1132 and 1133 of 2011 (MV)

Attorney(S)

Sri. B. Pramod, Adv. and Sri. Lepanna R., Adv.
Sri B.C Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R. 2. R. 1 Notice Dispensed With
Sri. B. Pramod, Adv. & Sri. Lepanna R, Adv.
Sri. B.C Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R. 2,
R. 1 Notice Dispensed With
Sri. B. Pramod, Adv. & Sri. Lepanna R, Adv.
Sri. B.C Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R. 2, R. 1 Notice Dispensed With

Judges

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

These three appeals arise out of a common judgment but concern different awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They were heard together, admitted and finally disposed of by this single judgment. The parties are referred to as they were in the claim petitions before the Tribunal.

The facts common to the three appeals, as recorded in the opinion, are that the claimants sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 14.02.2008 caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No. KA-16.T-8219-8220. Liability of KSRTC (the insurer/owner) for the accident was not disputed. The narrow issue for determination was whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper or required enhancement.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each of the three claim petitions is just and proper or requires enhancement.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

General approach taken by the court (applied to all three appeals):

The court reviewed the Tribunal's awards and the documentary and oral evidence placed on record (wound/discharge certificates, disability certificates, x-rays, bills, and oral testimony of claimants and medical witnesses).
On the basis of medical evidence (including specific disability percentages stated by Dr. Rajesh, PW 4), the court reassessed the appropriate heads and quantum of compensation: pain and suffering, medical and incidental expenses, loss of income during the laid-up period, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects (where applicable), cost of prosthesis/aid, future medical expenses, and loss of future income calculated using an applied functional disability percentage and the applicable multiplier.
Where claimants' pleaded incomes were not substantiated by documentary evidence, the court made an independent assessment of monthly income based on age, occupation and the year of accident (commonly assessing income at Rs. 3,500/- p.m in two matters and Rs. 3,500/- p.m in the third despite different pleaded incomes).
For calculation of future loss of income the court used: assessed monthly income × functional disability percentage × 12 × multiplier (multiplier depended on claimant's age: multiplier 18 for ages about 22–24).
The court increased several heads of compensation from the Tribunal's awards where it found them to be inadequate, and awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition until realisation on the additional amounts awarded.

MFA 1131/2011 (MVC No. 149/2010)

Facts and evidence relied upon: claimant sustained injuries including amputation of the right leg, injury to lower end of right femur and injury to left upper arm. Evidence included wound certificate (Ex. P-6), discharge cards (Ex. P-7 & P-8), disability certificate (Ex. P-12), x-ray films (Ex. P-218) and oral testimony of the claimant and treating doctor (PW 1 and PW 4). PW 4 gave disability figures: 24% to upper limb and 85% to lower limb; the Tribunal had used whole-body disability of 30%.

Court's stepwise analysis and adjustments:

Pain and suffering: Rs. 75,000 awarded by the Tribunal was considered just and not disturbed.
Medical and incidental expenses: Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000; court increased this to Rs. 75,000 considering three months inpatient treatment and multiple operations.
Loss of income during laid-up period: although claimant claimed Rs. 10,000 p.m (unproven), court assessed monthly income at Rs. 3,500 and awarded Rs. 21,000 for a 6-month laid-up period (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 9,000).
Loss of amenities: increased to Rs. 75,000 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 25,000) due to amputation and future discomfort/unhappiness.
Loss of marriage prospects: Rs. 25,000 awarded (court considered this just and proper given amputation).
Loss of future income: claimant aged about 24 → multiplier 18. Court took functional disability at 65% (in view of amputation) and computed future loss as Rs. 3,500 × 65% × 12 × 18 = Rs. 4,91,400 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,94,400).
Cost of artificial leg: Rs. 50,000 awarded.

Computation stated in the judgment (claimant's entitlement):

i) Towards pain & suffering — Rs. 75,000/- ii) Towards medical & incidental expenses — Rs. 75,000/- iii) Towards loss of income during laid up period — Rs. 21,000/- iv) Towards cost of artificial leg — Rs. 50,000/- v) Towards loss of marriage prospectus — Rs. 25,000/- vi) Towards loss of amenities — Rs. 75,000/- vii) Towards loss of future income — Rs. 4,91,400/- Total — Rs. 8,12,400/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal — Rs. 3,63,400/- Additional compensation — Rs. 4,49,000/-

The court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 4,49,000/-, rounded off to Rs. 4,50,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

MFA 1132/2011 (MVC No. 147/2010)

Facts and evidence relied upon: claimant sustained Type-3 compound fracture of right femur, fracture of tibia, middle shaft tibia and fibula. Evidence included discharge card (Ex. P-225), photographs (Ex. P-227 to P-234), disability certificate (Ex. P-236), x-ray films (Ex. P-574) and oral testimony of claimant and doctor (PW 3 and PW 4). PW 4 stated permanent disability of 69% to the lower limb.

Court's stepwise analysis and adjustments:

Pain and suffering: increased to Rs. 60,000 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 45,000) given nature of injuries (three fractures).
Medical and incidental expenses: increased to Rs. 1,00,000 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 75,000) due to five months inpatient treatment and multiple operations.
Loss of income during laid-up period: claimant's pleaded income of Rs. 10,000 p.m was unproven; court assessed income at Rs. 3,500 p.m and awarded Rs. 28,000 for an 8-month laid-up period (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 15,000).
Loss of amenities: Rs. 40,000 awarded (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 15,000).
Loss of future income: claimant aged about 22 → multiplier 18. Despite 69% stated lower-limb disability, court used functional disability at 25% for purposes of future income calculation and computed Rs. 3,500 × 25% × 12 × 18 = Rs. 1,89,000 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,62,000).
Future medical expenses: Rs. 15,000 awarded based on the fractures and doctor's evidence.

Computation stated in the judgment (claimant's entitlement):

viii) Towards pain & suffering — Rs. 60,000/- ix) Towards medical & incidental expenses — Rs. 1,00,000/- x) Towards loss of income during laid up period — Rs. 28,000/- xi) Towards loss of amenities — Rs. 40,000/- xii) Towards loss of future income — Rs. 1,89,000/- xiii) Towards future medical expenses — Rs. 15,000/- Total — Rs. 4,32,000/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal — Rs. 3,12,000/- Additional compensation — Rs. 1,20,000/-

The court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

MFA 1133/2011 (MVC No. 148/2010)

Facts and evidence relied upon: as per wound certificate (Ex. P-219) claimant sustained fracture of middle one-third of right humerus and comminuted fracture at junction of upper and middle one-third of right tibia. Evidence included disability certificate (Ex. P-221), x-ray film (Ex. P-222) and oral testimony of claimant and doctors (PW 2 and PW 4). PW 4 stated 22% permanent disability to upper limb and 29% to lower limb.

Court's stepwise analysis and adjustments:

Pain and suffering: Rs. 40,000 awarded and not enhanced (court found the Tribunal's award on this head to be just and proper).
Medical and incidental expenses: claimant produced medical bills for Rs. 8,000; court awarded Rs. 15,000 considering 15 days inpatient treatment (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 10,000).
Loss of income during laid-up period: claimant claimed Rs. 5,000 p.m as cleaner in a lorry (unproven); court assessed income at Rs. 3,500 p.m and awarded Rs. 14,000 for a 4-month laid-up period (Tribunal had assessed Rs. 3,000 p.m and awarded a lesser sum).
Loss of amenities: Rs. 20,000 awarded (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 10,000).
Loss of future income: claimant aged about 22 → multiplier 18. Court took combined functional disability at 13% (derived from 22% upper limb and 29% lower limb as stated by the doctor) and computed Rs. 3,500 × 13% × 12 × 18 = Rs. 98,280 (Tribunal had awarded Rs. 64,800).
Future medical expenses: Rs. 5,000 awarded.

Computation stated in the judgment (claimant's entitlement):

i) Towards pain & suffering — Rs. 40,000/- ii) Towards medical & incidental expenses — Rs. 15,000/- iii) Towards loss of income during laid up period — Rs. 14,000/- iv) Towards loss of amenities — Rs. 20,000/- v) Towards loss of future income — Rs. 98,280/- vi) Towards future medical expenses — Rs. 5,000/- Total — Rs. 1,92,280/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal — Rs. 1,24,800/- Additional compensation — Rs. 67,480/-

The court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 67,480/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: All three appeals are allowed in part; the Tribunal's awards are modified and enhanced as stated in the judgment.

Direct consequences and practical implications recorded by the court:

Each claimant was held entitled to the enhanced awards as specifically computed in the judgment for their respective matters (total amounts and additional compensation stated for each appeal in the reasoning above).
Interest: the additional compensation in each case is awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the respective claim petition until realization.
Insurance company obligations: the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation together with interest within two months from receipt of the copy of the judgment.
Investment directive: of the deposited amount, 75% with proportionate interest is to be invested in fixed deposits in favour of the claimants in any Nationalised/scheduled bank or post office for a period of 15 years, with the claimants having the option to renew deposits and to withdraw interest periodically. The remaining 25% with proportionate interest is to be released to the claimants forthwith.
Costs: the court recorded "No order as to cost."
Precedential effect: the judgment modifies the Tribunal awards in the three identified matters; the opinion does not state that a new legal principle or binding precedent was established beyond the factual and compensatory adjustments made in these appeals.

If any particular numerical detail or citation is required, it appears in the court's enumerated awards and computations set out above under each appeal heading.

Show full summary ...

Syed Sadiq v. G. Thippaiah

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.:— As these three appeals are arising out of a common judgment but different awards of the Tribunal, they are heard together, admitted and disposed of finally by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.02.2008 due to rash and negligent; driving of Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No. KA-16.T-8219-8220 by its driver and liability of KSRTC, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:

Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement?

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.

MFA 1131/2011 (MVC No. 149/2010)

5. The claimant in this case had sustained injuries to lower end of right femur and his right leg is amputated and he sustained injury over left upper arm. Injuries sustained and treatment taken by him are evident from wound certificate Ex. P-6, discharge cards Ex. P-7 & 8, disability certificate Ex. P 12, x-ray films Ex. P-218 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as PW 1 and 4 respectively. PW 4 Dr. Rajesh has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 24% to upper limb and 85% to lower limb and the Tribunal has considered the disability caused to whole body at 30%.

6. Considering amputation of right leg and other injuries sustained by the claimant Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper there is no scope for enhancement under this head.

7. Claimant was treated as inpatient for 3 months in different hospitals and has undergone operations on various dates. Considering the same a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The claimant claims to have been earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m by doing vegetable vending work, but it is not established by producing any document. Considering his age, year of accident his income is assessed at Rs. 3,500/- p.m as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries suggests he must have been under treatment and rest at least for a period of 6 months and Rs. 21,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Considering an amount discomfort and unhappiness he has to undergo in his future life on account of amputation of right leg a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Considering the amputation of right leg, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of marriage prospectus.

11. The claimant is aged about 24 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. Doctor has stated the disability of 24% to upper limb and 85% to lower limb and the Tribunal has considered the disability caused to whole body at 30%. Considering amputation of right leg, it is just and proper to take the functional disability at 65%. So, loss of future income works out to Rs. 4,91,400/- (Rs. 3,500/- × 65/100 × 12 × 18) and it is awarded as against Rs. 1,94,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

12. Further it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of artificial leg.

13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

i)Towards pain & sufferingRs. 75,000/-ii)Towards medical & Incidental expensesRs. 75,000/-iii)Towards loss of income During laid up periodRs. 21,000/-iv)Towards cost of artificial legRs. 50,000/-v)Towards loss of marriage prospectusRs. 25,000/-vi)Towards loss of amenitiesRs. 75,000/-vii)Towards loss of future IncomeRs. 4,91,400/-TotalRs. 8,12,400/-Compensation awarded by the TribunalRs. 3,63,400/-Additional compensationRs. 4,49,000/-

14. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 4,49,000/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

MFA 1132/2011 (MVC No. 147/2010)

15. The claimant had sustained Type-3 compound fracture of right femur, fracture of tibia, fracture of middle shall tibia, and fibula. Injuries sustained and treatment taken by him are evident from discharge card Ex. P 225, 8 photos Ex. P 227 to P 234, disability certificate Ex. P 236, x-ray films Ex. P 574 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as PW 3 and 4 respectively. PW 4 Dr. Rajesh has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 69% to lower limb.

16. Considering the nature of injuries particularly 3 fractures sustained by the claimant a sum of Rs. 60,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

17. Claimant was treated as inpatient for 5 months in different hospitals and has undergone operations on various dates. Considering the same a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

18. The claimant claims to have been earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m by doing vegetable vending work, but it is not established by producing any document. Considering his age, year of accident his income is assessed at Rs. 3,500/- p.m as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of Injuries suggests that he must have been under treatment and rest at least for a period of 8 months and therefore a sum of Rs. 28,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

19. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and an amount discomfort and unhappiness he has to undergo in his future life a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 15.000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

20. The claimant is aged about 22 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. Doctor has stated there is 69% disability to limb. Therefore it is just and proper to take functional disability at 25%. So, loss of future income works out to Rs. 1,89,000/- (Rs. 3,500/- × 25% × 12 × 18) and it is awarded as against Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

21. Considering 3 fractures sustained by the claimant and based on the evidence of the doctor Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.

22. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

viii)Towards pain & sufferingRs. 60,000/-ix)Towards medical & Incidental expensesRs. 1,00,000/-x)Towards loss of income During laid up periodRs. 28,000/-xi)Towards loss of amenitiesRs. 40,000/-xii)Towards loss of future IncomeRs. 1,89,000/-xiii)Towards future medical ExpensesRs. 15,000/-TotalRs. 4,32,000/-Compensation awarded by the TribunalRs. 3,12,000/-Additional compensationRs. 1,20,000/-

23. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

MFA 1133/2011 (MVC No. 148/2010)

24. As per wound certificate Ex. P 219 the claimant had sustained fracture of middle 1/3rd of right humerous and comminuted fracture at the junction of upper 1/3 and middle 1/3 of right tibia. Injuries sustained and treatment taken by him are also evident from disability certificate at Ex. P 221, x-ray film Ex. P 222 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as PW 2 and 4 respectively. PW 4 Dr. Rajesh has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 22% permanent disability to upper limb and 29% to lower limb.

25. Considering the nature of injuries particularly two fractures and other injuries sustained by the claimant Rs. 40,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.

26. Claimant has produced medical bills for Rs. 8,000/-. He was treated as inpatient for 15 days in a private hospital. Considering the same Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment: and attendant charges as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

27. The claimant claims to have been earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m by working as cleaner in a lorry, but it-is not established by producing any document. Considering his age, year of accident and profession as cleaner in a lorry his income is assessed at Rs. 3,500/- p.m as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries suggests that he must have been under treatment and rest at least for a period of 4 months and Rs. 14,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.

28. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and an amount discomfort and unhappiness he has to undergo in his future life Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

29. The claimant is aged about 22 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. Doctor has stated there is 22% disability to upper limb and 29% to lower limb. Therefore it is just and proper to take functional disability at 13%. So, loss of future come works out to Rs. 98,280/- (Rs. 3,500/- × 13% × 12 × 18) and it is awarded as against Rs. 64,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

30. Considering the fracture sustained by the claimant and the evidence of the doctor Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.

31. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

i)Towards pain & sufferingRs. 40,000/-ii)Towards medical & Incidental expensesRs. 15,000/-iii)Towards loss of income During laid up periodRs. 14,000/-iv)Towards loss of amenitiesRs. 20,000/-v)Towards loss of future IncomeRs. 98,280/-vi)Towards future medical ExpensesRs. 5,000/-TotalRs. 1,92,280/-Compensation awarded by the TribunalRs. 1,24,800/-Additional compensationRs. 67,480/-

32. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 67,480/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

33. Accordingly all the three appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and awards of the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated here in above. The claimants are entitled for additional compensation as stated above with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

34. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional compensation together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment from which 75% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D in favour of the claimants in any Nationalised/scheduled bank or post of office for a period of 15 years with a right of option for them to renew their deposits from time to time and withdraw interest: periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in their favour.

No order as to cost.

Syed Sadiq v. G. Thippaiah

Judgment Summary — B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

MFA 1131/2011 (MVC No. 149/2010)

MFA 1132/2011 (MVC No. 147/2010)

MFA 1133/2011 (MVC No. 148/2010)

Holding and Implications

Syed Sadiq v. G. Thippaiah

Comments