Karnataka State Road vs Thirupathi Naika
2021 Latest Caselaw 5478 Kant

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. DESAI

            MFA NO.8846/2012(MV)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CHAMRAJANAGAR DEPOT
BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
                                     ...   APPELLANT

(BY SMT. H.R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THIRUPATHI NAIKA
S/O LATE KALANAIK
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O YANAGALLI VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
02.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.371/2010 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,57,705/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A PENDETE-LITE AND FUTURE
                                     2




INTEREST TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                                JUDGMENT

Heard both the learned counsel. At the stage of

admission itself, with consent the matter is disposed

off.

2. This appeal is preferred by the KSRTC

challenging the judgment passed by the District Judge

and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for

short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),

Chamarajanagar in MVC No.371/2010 dated

02.05.2012, wherein the Tribunal has awarded sum of

Rs.1,58,205/- with costs. Less Rs.500/- which is

already paid by the KSRTC.

3. The claimants filed the petition before the

Tribunal contending that on 23.07.2009 at about

10.30 a.m., the petitioner along with other passengers

were traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration

No.KA-09/F3838. When bus came near Ettagalli betta

near slope which is situated towards Yanagalli village,

the driver of the said bus drove the vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner and the bus turned turtle

towards Halla, due to this the petitioner and other

passengers sustained injuries. Hence, the claim

petition was filed.

4. The respondents resisted the claim petition

denying the liability. They denied the factum of

accident, involvement of KSRTC bus and injury

sustained by the petitioner and rash and negligent

driving of KSRTC bus, income, age and nature of

occupation before the Tribunal. The petitioner in this

petition and other petitioners in other connected MVC

cases gave evidence as Pw, and they also got

examined an Orthopedic Surgeon by name

Dr.Rajashekar as Cw.1 and got marked 2 documents

as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The respondent-KSRTC examined

the evidence of the driver as RW.1.

5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal

by common judgment passed the impugned order

which is assailed in this appeal.

6. Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, the learned

counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.Sumathi, learned

counsel for respondent. I have perused the records

and judgment.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued

that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record and compensation of Rs.55,000/-

awarded under the head Pain and Suffering and

Mental Agony is on higher side. There was only one

grievous injury. Learned counsel also argued that

except outpatient slip and X-ray there are no other

records to show that he was inpatient for 8 days.

Learned counsel further argued that the

evidence of Doctor is highly exaggerated and he has

stated that there is disability of 35% which is

erroneous. On the other hand the evidence of Doctor

indicates that the fracture was united. Hence, the

compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded under

Disability, loss of future income and loss of future

prospects of life and unhappiness is on higher side. On

this ground, learned counsel prays to modify the

award.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent supports the judgment and contended that

Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and

appreciating in a proper perspective has passed the

impugned order which needs no interference.

9. From the above, the point that arises for

my consideration is:

"Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, illegal and needs interference by this Court?"

10. The medical records-Ex.P6 shows that the

petitioner in this case has sustained contusion on left

cheek and on left lower eye lid; scratch abrasion of

shin of right leg; abrasion upper 1/3rd shin right joint;

abrasion front of right knee; abrasion 1/3rd on right

thigh. Conjunctiva of eye. X-ray shows fracture of

fibula. It is evident that there was one grievous injury

i.e., fracture of fibula and other simple injuries. Of

course the petitioner has not produced the medical

records to show that he was inpatient for a period of 8

days and treatment taken. But admittedly he has

sustained fracture and other injuries. Definitely he

requires some treatment, might be for a short period.

But looking in to the nature of injuries, number of

injuries and period of accident, I am not inclined to

interfere with the sum of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal under the heads 'Pain and Suffering' and

'Mental Agony'. Of course when there is fracture, the

injured person is required to take rest at least for a

minimum period of 3 months and during that period,

he will definitely suffer loss of earning. He requires

periodical follow-up treatment and he is required to

visit the Doctor at hospital. Considering these aspects

the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,605/- under the head

Medical Expenses, Treatment, Conveyance, etc.,

which is minimum that is awarded.

11. As far as disability is concerned, it is

evident that petitioner was aged about 50 years and

he was doing coolie work and agricultural work. It is

stated that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. May

be he is not having records and there will not be any

records for coolie work and agricultural work.

However, he has examined Orthopedic surgeon by

name Dr.M.Rajashekar. Though the Doctor has stated

the disability at 35% related to particular part of the

body, the Tribunal has globally awarded sum of

Rs.70,000/- under the head of Loss of future income,

future prospects and unhappiness. Definitely when a

person sustained fracture though it is stated that the

fracture is united, but he will suffer that inconvenience

and unhappiness throughout his life. Therefore,

considering the nature of the injury, the medical

evidence, claimant's income and expenses, a sum of

Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head

of disability, loss of future income, loss of future

prospects and unhappiness needs no interference.

Since no other ground is urged, in view of the material

placed on record, in my considered view, the appeal

being devoid of any merits, is liable to be dismissed

without admission.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal immediately for disbursement to the claimant as per the order passed by the Tribunal along with records, if any.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NS