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