SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2539

- 1 -

MFA No. 5597 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5597 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

RAMACHANDRA

S/O LATE DASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT SENTHE KODIHALLI VILLAGE

KODIHALLI HOBLI

KANAKAPURA TALUK

RAMANAGARA DIST-562119.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI , ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION LTD

K H ROAD

BANGALORE-27

(MYSORE DIVISION)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC

NO.486/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND

SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

Digitally

signed by

JAI JYOTHI

J

Location:

High Court

of

Karnataka

- 2 -

MFA No. 5597 of 2016

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 24.03.2016 in

MVC.No.486/2015 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge

and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18),

for seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.02.2014

at about 11.30 am., the claimant was boarding the KSRTC

bus

bearing

Reg.No.KA-09-F-4957

at

Hebbal

road

junction, in front of Mettagalli police station, at that time,

the driver of the said bus has suddenly moved the bus in a

rash and negligent manner without giving any signal and

as a result, the claimant fell down from the bus and due to

the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

3.

Heard the arguments from both sides and

perused the records.

- 3 -

4.

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation

under various heads as follows:

1

Loss of future income Rs. 6,24,000/-

2

Pain and suffering

Rs. 75,000/-

3

Loss of amenities

Rs. 40,000/-

4

Medical expenses

Rs. 3,57,000/-

5

Loss of leave during

laid up period & rest

period

Rs. 66,000/-

6

Nourishment,

conveyance

&

attendant charges

Rs. 75,000/-

Total

Rs. 12,37,000/-

5.

In the present case, the claimant had suffered

the following injuries:

“Diffusseceretrar odema, right petrous

bone fracture and right temporal thin extra

dural hematoma and sustained type III B

fracture of both bones of left leg”

6.

Due to the above said injuries, left leg was

amputated below knee. The claimant is said to be running

- 4 -

a Military Hotel. Military Hotel is not a big hotel. For

running the said Military Hotel, claimant has to do lot of

work. Therefore, certainly, amputation of left leg below

knee amounts to 100% of functional disability affecting

the earning capacity of the claimant. If the claimant is

working in a white collar job or running any star hotel that

would have been different, but running a Military Hotel

requires involvement of family members and physical

involvement of the claimant from morning to night.

Certainly, this amputation of left leg below knee affects

the earning capacity substantially paralyzing life of the

claimant. Therefore, it is a fit case for taking 100% of

functional disability. Therefore, in this regard, I place

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1, wherein at

Paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 19, it is held as under:

“12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it

proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who

did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use'

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

- 5 -

disability

certificates,

without

proper

medical

assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous

doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving

liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But

where the disability certificates are given by duly

constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted

subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such

certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point

to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the

injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere

production of a disability certificate or Discharge

Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability

stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the

claimant or who medically examined and assessed the

extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-

examination with reference to the certificate. If the

Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence

produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical

Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation

with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer

the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of

the disability.

13. We may now summarise the principles

discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from

injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top