Karnataka High Court

Mr. Shivamurthy vs The Managing Director on 22 December, 2021

Bench: H T Prasad

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.3534 OF 2017(MV)

BETWEEN:

Mr. Shivamurthy,
S/o Madappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Resident of: Kunuru Village,
Horelagallu Post,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
                                         ...Appellant
(By Sri Chandrashekaraiah, Adv.
 for Sri Girimallaiah, Adv.)

AND:

The Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C.,
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru-560 027.
                                        ...Respondent
(By Smt. P. C. Sunitha, Adv.)

      This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against
the judgment and award dated: 05.12.2016, passed in
MVC No.5119/2015, on the file of the XIII Addl. Judge
                            2



and Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.

     This MFA coming on for orders, this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru

(SCCH-15) in MVC No.5119/2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 24.11.2015 at about 7.00

p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-42/S-8161 from Aralalu

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk. At that

time, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-184

being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of

the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident,

the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The age, avocation and income of the

claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was

pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in

the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the

accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of

the vehicle by the claimant himself. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by

the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-2 and Dr.Prakashappa T.H. was

examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

no documents were marked. The Claims Tribunal, by

the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the

accident took place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a

result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The

Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a

compensation of Rs.1,82,500/- along with interest at

the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Corporation to

deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal

has taken the notional income as merely as

Rs.7,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

19% to whole body but the Tribunal has assessed

whole body disability at only 8% and the same is on

the lower side.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 12 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

during treatment. Considering the same, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought

for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Corporation has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

19% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the

injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly

assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

Thirdly, considering the injuries suffered by the

claimant has granted just and reasonable

compensation and it does not call for interference.

Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of

on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal

at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side and the

same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Hence, she

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

The claimant has not produced any documents

with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional

income has to be assessed as per the guidelines

issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the

year 2015, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.9,000/- p.m.

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered

lacerated wound over right heel region and tenderness

over the right ankle and right leg. PW-3, the doctor

has stated in his evidence that the claimant has

suffered disability of 19% to whole body. Considering

the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering

the evidence of the doctor, I am of the opinion that

the whole body disability has to be taken at 10%.

The claimant was aged about 29 years at the time of

the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group

is '17'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.1,83,600/- (Rs.9,000*12*17*

10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 12 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. He has also undergone

surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment

and he has to suffer with the disability and

unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the

same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and

sufferings' fromRs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, 'loss of

amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and 'loss

of income during laid-up period' for a period of two

months, i.e, Rs.18,000/- (Rs.9,000*2).

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads is just and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 20,000 40,000 Medical expenses 4,000 4,000 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 14,000 18,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 20,000 Loss of future income 1,14,500 1,83,600 Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000 Total 1,82,500 2,85,600

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.2,85,600/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this judgment. The enhanced

compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced

compensation amount in favour of the claimant after