Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Somashekar, J.
M.G. Annapoorna D/o M. S. Gopala Krishna - Appellant
Vs.
Managing Director BMTC - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3094 of 2013
Decided On : 04-06-2019
Prakash M.H., Adv., I.S. Pramod Chandra, Adv., C. Shankara Reddy, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of actionable negligence, extent of injuries, loss of academic year, permanent disability, and future medical expenses in awarding enhanced compensation.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident - MVC No.5311/2011 - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, Bangalore. The court found actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver, leading to grievous injuries sustained by the claimant. The court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.2,60,000.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained grievous injuries after being hit by a bus and filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,50,000, which the claimant sought to enhance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver, leading to the claimant's grievous injuries. The court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.2,60,000 with interest.
Issues: The issues included the extent of injuries, loss of academic year, permanent disability, and future medical expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver, leading to the claimant's injuries. The court considered the nature of injuries, loss of academic year, permanent disability, and future medical expenses in awarding enhanced compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the claimant was allowed in part, and the appellant/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,60,000 with interest. The impugned judgment and award were modified accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
K. Somashekar, J.
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, Bangalore vide judgment and award dated 18.01.2013 in MVC No.5311/2011.
The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
3. It is stated in the claim petition that on 20.07.2011 at about 8.50 a.m., the claimant namely M.G.Annapoorna, after alighting from BMTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01/F-4483, opposite to Komarla group, on Krishna Rao Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore, and when she was proceeding, the driver of the bus all of a suddenly moved the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. Due to the said impact, claimant fell down and the rear side of the bus ran over the right leg of the claimant and thereby, she sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, she filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation, by urging various grounds.
4. In pursuance to issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying petition averments.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. In order to substantiate the case, the guardian of minor claimant was examined as PW.1 and three witnesses were examined as PW.2 to PW.4 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P33 were got marked. On behalf of respondents, the driver of bus was examined as RW.1 and another witness was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R1 to R.3(iii) were marked. The Tribunal after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present appeal, by urging various grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and the same has to be modified. Further, he contends that the appellant has sustained degloving injury to her lower limb and she was compelled to get hospitalized for long time on three occasions. She underwent surgeries and several procedures have been done in order to cure the injured part. Despite effective and continuous treatment, the appellant could not recuperate from the injuries, and due to the effect of grievous injuries, it has left its remarks on the entire lower limb with several restrictions functionally. The claimant being a girl has to bear the disability as well as the scar in the entire area of the legs. The medical evidence reveals that there is disability of 18% to whole body. The Tribunal without appreciating the entirety of case in a proper perspective has passed the impugned judgment and the same requires interference of this Court.
7. Further, the Tribunal has not taken note of the marriage prospects of the appellant and the Tribunal is not justified in lesser compensation for loss of amenities in life. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the compensation properly for the medical expenses incurred by the parents. The appellant has lead the evidence of PW.4 to demonstrate the expenses incurred to get physiotherapy. Merely on technical grounds, the Tribunal is not justified in discarding the evidence and not awarding any compensation under this head also needs to be modified suitably. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the loss of future earning capacity in view of the 18% disability to the whole body. Hence, the same needs to be considered by this Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks intervention of this C
