Karnataka High Court
Sri. Pundalikappa S/O Fakkirappa ... vs The Managing Director on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.24518/2011(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PUNDA LIKAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA TATTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: NWKRTC BUS DRIVER,
R/O ALA GAWAD , T Q: NAVALGUND- 582208,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
M/S. VIJAYANAND ROAD LIN ES, LTD .,
ENKEY COM PLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580020.
(OWNER OF THE LUXURY BUS No. K A-25/A- 1732)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE COM PANY LTD.,
MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM-590016.
(POLI CY ISSUED BY D.O. HUBLI.)
(POLI CY No . 240300/ 31/ 01/00729)
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.V .ANGA DI, ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(NOTICE T O R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER S ECT ION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, PRAYING THI S COURT
TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2010
IN M.V.C.No.1293/2005 PASS ED BY THE COURT OF THE
SENIOR CIVI L J UDGE, ASSISTAN T SESSIONS J UDGE AND
ADDL. M.A .C.T, BA ILHONGA L AT: BAI LHONGA L AND ETC.
2
THIS APPEAL COMI NG ON F OR ADMISSION THIS DAY, T HE
COURT , D ELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 30.03.2010
passed by Senior Civil Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge
and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in
MVC No.1293/2005, this appeal is filed by claimant
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
3. Sri. Madanmohan Kannur, learned counsel for
claimant / appellant submits that enhancement sought is
on limited ground.
4. Brief facts as stated are that in an accident that
occurred on 07.05.2004, claimant who was working as
driver in NWKRTC bus sustained grievous injuries when a
bus belonging to M/s Vijayananda Road Lines bearing bus
No.KA-25/A-1732 dashed against NWKRTC bus due to rash
and negligent driving by its driver resulting in injuries to
claimants. Claimant sustained fracture of both femur, left
knee and tibia on left side. Despite taking treatment he
cannot recover fully. As on date of accident, he was 38
years of age. Due to physical disability sustained as a
result of injury he was not able to continue as driver.
His employer passed an order of re-categorization giving
him a post of attender. Claiming compensation for same,
he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of bus.
5. On contest, Tribunal held that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and
awarded total compensation of Rs.5,84,250/- under
different heads and respondent no.2/insurer was held
liable to pay same. Not satisfied with quantum of
compensation claimant is in appeal.
6. As per exhibits P.8 and P.9, P.357 and P.358,
claimant was earning monthly salary of Rs.14,140/- while
working as driver and Rs.10,150/- while he was working
as attender. Therefore, there is reduction of Rs.3,970/-.
However, Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'loss of income' instead of
determining compensation under conventional head. It
was submitted that multiplier applicable to age of
claimant would be '15'.
7. On the other hand, Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned
counsel for respondent/insurer supported award and
opposed enhancement. It was submitted that claimant
had continued in his occupation and over all compensation
awarded was just and proper.
8. From above submission, occurrence of accident
and claimant sustaining injuries therein and insurer being
held liable to pay compensation is not in dispute.
Tribunal determined age of claimant as 38 years and his
occupation as NWKRTC driver. Claimant is in appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, point
that arises for consideration is:-
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?"
9. Claimant is seeking for enhancement of
compensation only insofar as difference in salary. After
the accident, due to re-categorization of claimant, as per
exhibits P8, P9, P.357 and P.358-salary slips issued by
NWKRTC claimants was earning Rs.14,120/- while he was
working as driver prior to accident. After accident due to
re-categorization, his salary is reduced to Rs.10,150/-.
Difference would be Rs.3,970/-. There is direct evidence
to establish reduction in salary. Therefore, Tribunal was
not justified in awarding compensation towards physical
disability, Tribunal ought to have calculated loss of
earning. Compensation towards loss of future earning
would be
Rs.3,970/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.7,14,600/- as against
Rs.2,00,000/-awarded by Tribunal.
10. Compensation awarded under other heads found
to be just and proper. Hence, left undisturbed.
11. Thus, claimant is entitled for total compensation
of Rs.10,98,850/-. Point for consideration is partly
answered in affirmative as above.
12. In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part with cost.
Claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.10,98,850/- as against
Rs.05,84,250/-.
Claimant would be entitled for interest at
6% per annum excluding delayed period of 442
days.
Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit
entire compensation amount within six weeks
from date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
On deposit 50% of enhanced
compensation is to be released and remaining
50% of amount would be kept in fixed deposit
for a period of 5 years.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
