Sri Shivarudrappa vs The Divisional Controller
2021 Latest Caselaw 528 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 528 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivarudrappa vs The Divisional Controller on 8 January, 2021

Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun

                        1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

                       AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

            MFA NO.5632 OF 2018 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O. LATE VEERAIAH @ KOOSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT ANUGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BEERIHUNDI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT
                                        ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, URBAN DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE-19
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1158/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
                                  2


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

04.04.2017 passed in MVC No.1158/2015 by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (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

20.08.2015, at about 12.30 to 1.00 p.m., the

petitioner was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-09/EY-5326 near Bogadi main road

at Kukkarahalli Kere Signal Point, Saraswathipuram,

Mysuru and when he was waiting for the signal, the

KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09/F-4809 being driven by

its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to

the motorcycle of the petitioner resulting in the

petitioner sustaining injuries. Hence, the petitioner

preferred MVC No.1158/2015 before the Tribunal and

claimed a compensation of Rs.29,80,000/-.

4. The offending bus belongs to the respondent-

Corporation. After service of notice, the respondent

appeared through its Counsel and denied liability.

5. The petitioner has examined himself as PW.1

and also examined a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P20. The respondent has examined one

witness and has not got marked any documents.

6. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in,

the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of

Rs.2,63,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to

the petitioner. Not satisfied by the same, the

petitioner has preferred this appeal.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The factum of accident and the negligence of the

driver of the offending bus is not in dispute. Hence,

the only question that arises for consideration in this

appeal is the quantum of compensation?

9. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered fractures

to his limb. He was doing agriculture and mason

work. However, no evidence is adduced evidencing

the income that he was earning. In that event, we

have to adopt the notional income. The Tribunal has

adopted Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of

the petitioner. The accident is of the year 2015. The

income of Rs.5,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal

is on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in

consultation with insurance companies for the year

2015, we deem it appropriate to hold the notional

income of the petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month. The

petitioner was aged about 55 years at the time of the

accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable

would be 11. The Tribunal has assessed the

percentage of permanent disability of the petitioner at

7%. No reasons are given by the petitioner to as to

why the same needs to be disbelieved. The Tribunal

has awarded a sum of Rs.46,200/- towards loss of

future earnings. Based on the notional income and

the injuries suffered by the petitioner, we deem it

appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.83,160/-

[Rs.9,000/- X 12 X 11 X 7%].

10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,500/-

towards medical expenses and we find the same to be

appropriate. Similarly, towards nourishment and

other miscellaneous expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/-

is awarded and we deem it to be appropriate.

Towards pain, injuries and suffering, as against

Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, we deem it

appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/-.

Towards future medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- is

awarded and we deem it to be appropriate. Towards

loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and discomforts, a

sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded and we deem it to be

appropriate. Further, we deem it appropriate to

award a sum of Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earnings

during laid up period. Thus, in all, the petitioner is

entitled to a sum of Rs.3,37,660/- as against

Rs.2,63,700/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

Rs.3,37,660/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and

Sixty only) as against Rs.2,63,700/-

which shall carry interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of the

claim petition till its realization.

iii) The Corporation shall deposit the

amount determined as aforesaid before

the Tribunal within 90 days from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of

the judgment and order.