Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishna Naik vs The Managing Director on 6 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.3122 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNA NAIK
S/O LAKSHMAN NAIK
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.1 TO 3
RAJESHWARI BUILDING
4TH CROSS, ATTURU LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 009
LUKUMAN PETROL BUNK
MADANAYAKANAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
M.M.HALLI THANDA
M.M.HALLI HOSPET ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC DIVISION
SHANTHINAGAR, K. H. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKSRTC DIVISION
SARIGE SADANA
2
CENTRAL OFFICE, KBN ROAD
KALABURGI - 585 102 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI, ADV. FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.170/2016, ON THE
FILE OF X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
20.06.2017 passed in MVC No.170/2016 by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the
Tribunal'), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2015, at
about 10.15 p.m., the petitioner was crossing the road near
Mandanayakanahalli. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-1143 being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner came and dashed against him.
As a result, he sustained multiple injuries on the head, legs,
hands and other parts of the body. Hence, he preferred
MVC No.170/2016 and claimed a compensation of
Rs.60,00,000/-.
4. The offending bus belongs to respondent no.2-
Corporation. The petitioner has examined himself as PW.1
and a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38.
Respondent no.2 has examined one witness and got marked
Ex.R1.
5. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the
Tribunal concluded that the petitioner based on the injuries
suffered would be entitled to a compensation of
Rs.7,57,500/-. However, it came to the conclusion that the
accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the
petitioner also and has assessed the contributory negligence
of the petitioner at 40%. Accordingly, it has awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,54,500/- with interest
@ 9% p.a. to the petitioner. Not satisfied by the same, the
petitioner has preferred this appeal.
6. It is contended by the petitioner that there is no
negligence on his part in respect of the said accident and
also that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
various heads are on the lower side.
7. Respondent No.2 has justified the order of the
Tribunal and has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the records.
9. It is noticed that the petitioner has suffered the
following injuries:
1. Head injury with SDH
2. Fracture left frontal line
3. Fracture both bones right leg
10. Ex.R1 is the sketch depicting the accident. From the
evidence, it is also borne out that the petitioner crossed the
road where there was no zebra crossing. Thus, the
petitioner has also contributed for the happening of the
accident. However, based on the evidence, we are of the
opinion that contributory negligence of the petitioner to the
accident can be held at 25% and not as 40% as arrived by
the Tribunal.
11. The petitioner is the owner of a petrol bunk and it is
seen that his income has not suffered due to the accident.
The accident and the injuries has in no way can be held to
result in deducting the future earning prospects of the
petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal has been correct in not
granting any compensation towards loss of future income
due to permanent disability. Further, it is seen from the
records that the petitioner himself has deposed and the
Tribunal has not seen neurobehavioral disability on his part.
It is also observed that the fractures are united. The
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering and we deem it to be
appropriate. Similarly, under the head of medical expenses,
Rs.5,17,500/- has been awarded and we deem it to be
appropriate. In respect of attendant charges, extra
nutritious food and conveyance expenses, Rs.20,000/- is
awarded and we deem it appropriate to enhance the same
to Rs.30,000/-. In respect of loss of future amenities and
happiness, Rs.80,000/- is awarded and we deem it
appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards future
medical expenses, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded and we
deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.50,000/-. Thus, in
all, as against a sum of Rs.7,57,500/-, we hereby determine
the compensation amount to Rs.7,97,500/-. Out of the said
compensation, 25% has to be deducted towards
contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Then
the total compensation amount for which the petitioner is
entitled is Rs.5,98,125/-. We also deem it appropriate to
award interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of petition till its realization.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.7,97,500/- as against Rs.7,57,500/-. In
view of the contributory negligence
re-determined by us at 25% on the part of the
injured, the claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.5,98,125/- as against
Rs.4,54,500/- which shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of the claim
petition till its realization.
iii] The Corporation shall deposit the re-assessed
total compensation determined as aforesaid
before the Tribunal within 90 days from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment and order.
iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability, apportionment and
disbursement remains intact.
v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed
in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
