Manjunath S/O Veerabhadrappa Hadapad vs. The Divisional Controller

Facts

The appellant, Manjunath, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on July 28, 2015. He alleged that a KSRTC bus, driven negligently, collided with his motorcycle. The KSRTC denied negligence, claiming the appellant was intoxicated. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the KSRTC liable and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,34,160/- with 8% interest. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents are the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, and the Self Insurance Co. Ltd.

Held

The Court partly allowed the appeal. Regarding monthly income, it was held that while the claimant's stated income of Rs. 15,000/- was not substantiated, the Tribunal's assessment of Rs. 6,000/- was also not justified. The Court re-assessed the notional monthly income at Rs. 8,000/- for the year 2015, based on norms adopted by the Karnataka State Legal Services Committee. Concerning disability, the Court found that while the claimant sustained fractures, the fractures had united with no restriction in movement. The Tribunal's assessment of 8% loss of earning capacity was not considered grossly inadequate, and no interference was made on this point. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exclude two medical bills, noting they were handwritten, in a different format, and lacked service tax/GST collection numbers, and the author was not examined. Compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Compensation for loss of amenities was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Compensation for future medical expenses for implant removal was awarded at Rs. 25,000/-. Loss of income during the laid-up period was re-assessed at Rs. 24,000/-. The rate of interest was reduced from 8% to 6% per annum, citing a precedent. The total re-assessed compensation amounted to Rs. 3,36,880/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation as sought for? The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- despite his claim of earning Rs. 15,000/- as a barber. He also contended that the Tribunal underestimated his loss of earning capacity by considering only 8% disability when medical evidence suggested 25-30% disability. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly ignored two medical bills for not bearing GST TIN numbers and that compensation awarded under other heads was inadequate. He also pointed out the Tribunal's failure to award compensation for future surgery to remove implants. The respondents argued that the Tribunal's award was excessive, particularly the 8% interest rate, and sought to support the original award.