Smt.Shobha Rani @ Shobha Murugesh vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1232 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                      BEFORE

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

            MFA No.5346 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHOBHA RANI
@ SHOBHA MURUGESH
W/O MURUGESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO. EWS-447, CITB
2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSORE-570 023.
                                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.C.ANANTHARAM, ADV. )

AND

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C
KSRTC RURAL DIVISION
KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE-570 001.
                                  ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.S.SHRINIVAS, ADV. FOR
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADV.)
                            2



    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:21.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.692/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-2, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 21.2.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 16.4.2012 the claimant was

traveling in the bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-F-

4598 towards Mulabagilu to Kolar near Neranahalli

lake, at that time, the driver of the bus drove the

same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, due to which the bus fell down to the road

side. 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 No.1

filed written statement and submitted that when the

driver of the bus was proceeding slowly near

Neranahalli lake suddenly about 10 to 12 bore came

to the road across the bus and in order to save the

animals the driver applied the break suddenly. Due to

which the accident took place. There was no

negligence on the part of the driver. 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-1 and Dr.Umesh as PW-2 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On

behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined

as RW-1 and no document was produced. 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.2,15,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the KSRTC

to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that even though the claimant claims that

she was working as Supervisor at Herbal Life and

earning Rs.75,000/- per month and produced Form

16A as per Ex.P-11 and IT returns as per Ex.P-12 and

pass book as per Ex.P-13 and 14, but the Tribunal is

not justified in taking the notional income as merely

as Rs.5,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered compression

fracture more than 50% and instability of fracture is

30%. The overall disability is 50% which is permanent

in nature. Due to the disability, she is unable to

continue her work. But the Tribunal has failed to grant

any compensation under the head of 'loss of future

income'.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as

inpatient for a period of 20 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, she was not in a position to

discharge her regular work. She 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 KSRTC has contended that even though the

claimant claims that she was earning Rs.75,000/- per

month and produced Ex.P-9 letter issued by the

company confirming her designation as Supervisor,

but she has not examined the author of the said

document. Therefore, she has not proved that she was

working as Supervisor and earning Rs.75,000/- p.m.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, the claimant has not proved that due

to the disability she has lost her job and that there is

loss of income. The Tribunal considering the same,

has rightly not granted any compensation under the

head of 'loss of future income'.

Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and

reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference. Hence, he sought dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimant claims that she was working earlier

as Commission Agent at Herbal Life and later she was

appointed as Supervisor and earning Rs.75,000/- per

month. In order to prove that she was earning

Rs.75,000/- p.m., produced Form 16A and IT returns,

bank pass book as per Ex.P-11 to 13. In Form No.16A,

the amount of commission which was credited is

mentioned as Rs.58,931/- as on 15.2.2012 and sum

of Rs.14,817/- as on 15.3.2012. The amount of tax

deposited is shown as Rs.13,268/-. As per Ex.P-12,

the gross total income for the assessment year 2012-

13 is mentioned as Rs.73,748/- p.a. The Tribunal

considering the same, has taken the notional income

as Rs.6,000/-. Even as per the guidelines issued by

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

accident taken place in the year 2012, the notional

income has to be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. Therefore,

I am of the opinion that the notional income of the

claimant can be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained thoracic lombar region with severe pain and

difficulty in breathing and x-ray shows compression

fracture of D12 and D8 and both sides ribs were

fractured. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence

that the claimant has suffered compression fracture

more than 50% and instability of fracture is 30%. The

overall disability is 50% which is permanent in nature.

He has further deposed that she is unable to do her

work due to the injury. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and

injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole

body disability is taken at 25%. The claimant is aged

about 47 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to her age group is '13'. Thus, the

claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,73,000/-

(Rs.7,000*12*13*25%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

The nature of injuries suggest that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period

of 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000*3 months)

under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 20 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

enhance the sum awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'

from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She has

suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to

suffer with the disability stated by the doctor

throughout her life. Considering the same, I am

inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

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 40,000 50,000 Medical expenses 125,000 125,000 Food, nourishment, 10,000 15,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 0 21,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 40,000 50,000 Loss of future income 0 273,000 Total 215,000 534,000

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.5,34,000/-.

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a.

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

of realization, within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM