Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Rajashekar Gowda R B on 3 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
MFA No. 5799 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5799 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA R.B.
S/O BATHEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT REDDEMPALLI VILLAGE,
KASHETTIPALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K KOLAR DISTRICT.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED.01.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.7873/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.11,07.869/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT
P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.40,000/-)
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
MFA No. 5799 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as MV Act) challenging the judgment and award dated 01.04.2022 passed in MVC No.7873/2019 passed by the VIII ADDL. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for having awarded the compensation to the respondent.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
3. The appellant was respondent/Insurance company and respondent was the petitioner/claimant before the Trial Court. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed claim petition for under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') for claiming compensation for the injury sustained and road traffic accident dated 27.8.2019. It is alleged by him that on the said date at 12.30 p.m., when he was riding motor -3- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 cycle Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-V-2369 at about 12.30 p.m., near Punganur cross, Srinivasapura Madanapalli road, Srinivasapur talk, Kolar district, at that time, one KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07-F-1683 came from opposite direction i.e., from Madanapalli side, driven by the driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost the control over the bus, went on a wrong side of the road and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to which, he has sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital and sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The petitioner has spent lot of amount towards hospitalization. Hence, filed claim petition for having awarded the said amount to the respondent as compensation
5. On receipt of the summons, the respondent/KSRTC appeared and filed a statement of objection by denying the rash and negligent driving, also denied age, occupation, injury and income of the petitioner and contended that there is no disability and there is no avocation. Also denied by taking specific contention that the petitioner was driving the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 motorcycle in a high speed, came from opposite direction by overtaking a private vehicle and dashed against the bus which was stationary on its right side corner of the bus stand. Further contended, that the petitioner himself sustained the injury and therefore there is no negligence, on the part of the driver of the KSRTC. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, on 27.08.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. when the Petitioner was going towards his village Reddempalli from Srinivasapura Town by riding a Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-V-2369, slowly and cautiously on correct side of the road, when he reached near Punganur Cross, on Srinivasapura-
Madanapalli Road of Kolar Distict, one KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-07-F-1683 came from opposite direction i.e., from Madanapalli side, driving by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle went wrong side of the road and dashed to Petitioners Motor Cycle, due to which, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous head injuries, as mentioned in claim petition?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation petition? as prayed in the petition?
3. What order or award ?
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022
7. To prove the case, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. and also examined another witness, the Doctor as PW2. On behalf o the respondent the driver was examined as RW1 and no documents were produced. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative and issue No.2 in the partly affirmative. Accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.11,07,869/-, which is as under and fixed the liability on the respondent KSRTC.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
in Rs.
1. Loss of future income 7,99,680-00
2. Pain and Suffering 50,000-00
3. Conveyance, Nourishment and 25,000-00
Attendant Charges
4. Medical Expenses 1,39,922-00
5. Loss of amenities in life 50,000-00
6. Loss of income during laid up 3,267-00
period
7. Future medical expenses 40,000-00
Total 11,07,869-00
8. Being aggrieved with the fixing of the liability, as well as quantum of compensation, the KSRTC is before this court.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent (appellant herein) has seriously contended that the tribunal committed error in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 disbelieving the evidence of the respondent as the vehicle was standing on the left side of the road in a bus stop and the passengers were alighting and boarding, where the petitioner himself drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and by overtaking another private vehicle, dashed to the stationary bus and sustained injury. Therefore, the question of fixing liability on the KSRTC does not arise. Also contended that the tribunal committed error in taking 28% of disability for the whole body and other heads and also awarded exorbitantly. Hence, prayed for reducing the same.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contended that the amount of calculation made by the tribunal is correct. Hence, prayed for dismissing this appeal.
11. Having heard the arguments, perused the records, the point that arises for my consideration are, Whether tribunal committed error in fixing the liability on KSRTC and also awarding -7- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 compensation exorbitantly, which requires reduction ?
12. On perusal of the record and the pleading of the petitioner that on the said date of accident i.e, on 27.08.2019 at 12.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding in motorcycles Active Honda, the KSRTC bus came from opposite direction on the wrong side and dashed to the petitioner. Due to which, he sustained injury. In support of the contention, the petitioner produced FIR at Ex.P1, Complaint at Ex.P.2, Spot Mahazar at Ex.P.3. The tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record and cross examination made by respondent and also evidence made by respondent as RW1, driver of the KSRTC Vehicle, came to the conclusion this accident occurred due to negligent driving of KSRTC bus driver. Though the respondent taken contention that the bus was stationary and had stopped at the bus stop and he has given oral evidence, but the police have filed charge sheet, after the investigation against him, which was not challenged. That apart, the respondent not examined the conductor or any passenger to show the accident -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 occurred when the bus was in station on the right side. Therefore, considering the same, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in Affirmative in favour of the claimant, holding that this accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the KSRTC. Therefore, I am of the view, there is nothing to interfere in this case, except for oral Testimony of RW1, nothing has been produced on record and lead any additional evidence in the tribunal. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in favour of the claimant against the insurer/KSRTC.
13. As regards to compensation, the petitioner suffered fractured injuries on both the legs, patella and undergone surgery where implants also still in situ. The medical bills of Rs.1,39,922/- spent and admitted in hospital for more than seven days. Such being the case, awarding Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings cannot be said it is exaggerated. Food, nourishment and attendant charges of Rs.25,000/- is very meagre. The medical expenses awarded is based upon the documents at Rs.1,39,922/-. Loss of amenities awarded was Rs.50,000/-. The future medical expenses awarded was -9- NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 Rs.40,000/-. However, the tribunal not awarded any loss of laid-up period, except awarding Rs.3,267/- which is not correct. However, claimants have not filed any appeal regarding enhancement of compensation. Considering the quantum of compensation, the injury sustained by the petitioner in both legs where one leg sustained 30% of the disability and another leg is 54% percent of disability, totally 84% of disability to both legs. Tribunal considered 1/3rd of the same to the whole body, which is 28%. Such being the case, the tribunal not committed error calculating 28% of disability to whole body. Though learned counsel contended that there is no physical functional disability etc., but the petitioner sustained fracture of both the legs and it is said to be due to the accident. Such being the case, it is difficult for him to sit, squat, stand or run for long time and the disability definitely will affect the functional disability of the claimants. Hence, the award cannot be held insufficient. Such being the case, the appeal filed by the respondent/appellant is devoid of merits.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25209 MFA No. 5799 of 2022 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:SK