Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri. Noushan Khan on 15 January, 2021
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9965 OF 2018 (MV)
CONNECTED WITH
M.F.A. CROSS-OBJECTION NO.82 OF 2019
IN M.F.A. NO.9965 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
K.S.R.T.C. BUS NO. KA-17-F-1534,
DAVANAGERE,
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
K.S.R.T.C.,
BENGALURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. NAGARAJA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI NOUSHAN KHAN
S/O. NASIR AHMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
KHAZI MOHALLA,
OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2
2. SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA A. K.
S/O. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER,
TOKEN NO.280,
BUS NO. KA-17-F-1534,
RESIDENT OF TUMMANAKATTE ROAD,
A.K. COLONY,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T. S. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R-1 &
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 13-12-2018)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6-8-2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.756 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.-12, BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.9,02,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A. CROB. NO.82 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI NOUSHAN KHAN
S/O. NASIR AHMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
KHAZI MOHALLA,
OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI.
...CROSS-OBJECTOR
(BY SRI T. S. VENKATESH, ADV.)
3
AND:
1. SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA A.K.
S/O. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER,
TOKEN NO.280,
BUS NO.KA-17-F-1534,
RESIDENT OF TUMMAKATTE ROAD,
A. K. COLONY,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DAVANGERE DIVISION,
K.S.R.T.C. BUS BEARING NO.KA-17-F-1534,
NOW THROUGH LAW-OFFICER,
K.S.R.T.C.
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 12-9-2019)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS-OBJECTION
IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE C.P.C. AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6-8-2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.756 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.-12, BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION
ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
In the appeal and cross-objection, exception is taken
to the impugned judgment and award dated 6-8-2018
passed in M.V.C. No.756 of 2016 whereby, the Tribunal
awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.9,02,400/- in
favour of the claimant towards injuries sustained by him
in a road traffic accident that occurred on 4-3-2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C as
well the claimant, and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various grounds
urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the
material on record, the learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C
submits that the material on record clearly indicates that
the Tribunal has committed a grave and serious error of
law and jurisdiction in coming to the erroneous
conclusion that the accident occurred solely on the
negligent driving of the Driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus. It is
submitted that the material on record indicates that the
claimant was also responsible for the accident due to his
rash and negligent driving and entire liability could not
have been fastened upon the K.S.R.T.C.
Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal has
committed an error coming to the conclusion that the
claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of
30% to the whole body without there being any medical
evidence and consequently, the compensation awarded
towards 'loss of future income' deserves to be reduced.
Thirdly, it is contended that having regard to the
injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation
awarded towards 'pain and suffering' and other heads is
on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced.
Lastly, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding
interest at the rate of 9% per annum in view of the well
settled principle of law with regard to awarding interest on
compensation in respect of motor vehicles claims.
4. Per contra, in addition to reiterating the various
grounds urged in the memorandum of cross-objection, the
learned counsel for the claimant submits that, apart from
the fact that the Tribunal has correctly come to the
conclusion that the accident in question occurred solely
on account of rash and negligent driving of the Driver of
the K.S.R.T.C. bus, the compensation awarded is meager
and inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced by
this Court.
5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award as
well the material on record would indicate that while
dealing with issue No.1 relating to the occurrence of the
accident, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the entire
material on record and recorded a correct finding that the
accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus.
Further, the Tribunal while awarding compensation has
also taken into account the medical records and also
evidence of Doctor-C.W.1 and recorded a correct finding
that the claimant suffered disability of 30% to the whole
body. Upon re-evaluation and re-appreciation on the
material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the
findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to
negligence as well quantum of compensation is correct
and proper and the same does not warrant interference by
this Court.
6. In so far as quantum of interest is concerned, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
K.S.R.T.C., the Tribunal has erroneously awarded interest
at the rate of 9% per annum as against 6%, which is the
correct rate of interest in motor vehicles claims.
7. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
i. M.F.A No.9965 of 2018 is partly allowed
and M.F.A. CROB. No.82 of 2019 is
dismissed;
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
6-8-2018 passed in M.V.C. No.756 of 2016
is modified;
iii. The quantum of compensation of
Rs.9,02,400/- is hereby confirmed. The
claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realisation as against interest at
the rate of 9% awarded by the Tribunal;
iv. The amount in deposit is directed to be
transferred to the Tribunal for
disbursement; and
v. The appellant-K.S.R.T.C. is granted six
months time to deposit/pay the balance
compensation together with interest to the
claimant. It is further directed that in the
event, the appellant does not deposit/pay
the balance within the stipulated time
stated supra, it is liable to pay the interest
at the rate of 9% per annum.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk
