Karnataka High Court

B. R. Annappa vs The Divisional ... on 9 November, 2021

Bench: H T Prasad

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                     BEFORE

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

           MFA No.3001 OF 2017(MV)
                     C/W
           MFA No. 3000 OF 2017(MV)


IN MFA 3001/2017
BETWEEN:

K. R. ANNAPPA
S/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O DUMMI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526.
                                    ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHASHIDHARA R., ADV.)

AND

1.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/CONTROLLER
      DAVANAGERE DIVISION
      KSRTC DEPOT
      DAVANAGERE PIN-577001.

2.    THE CHAIRMAN
      INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND
      KSRTC
                          2



      SARIGE BHAVAN
      BANGALORE-01.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT    AND     AWARD   DATED:
02.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE,
PARTLY    ALLOWING     THE   CLAIM   PETITION    FOR
COMPENSATION     AND   SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.


IN MFA 3000/2017
BETWEEN:

B. R. ANNAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS
R/O DUMMI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526.
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHASHIDHARA R., ADV.)

AND

1.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
      /CONTROLLER
      DAVANAGERE DIVISION
      KSRTC DEPOT
      DAVANAGERE PIN-577001.
                            3



2.   THE CHAIRMAN
     INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND
     KSRTC
     SARIGE BHAVAN
     BANGALORE-01.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST    THE    JUDGMENT      AND    AWARD     DATED:
02.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE,
PARTLY    ALLOWING      THE    CLAIM    PETITION    FOR
COMPENSATION      AND    SEEKING      ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.


     THESE MFAS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor

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

for short) have been filed by the claimants being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.12.2016 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Holalkere in MVC 230/2014 and 229/2014

respectively.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

briefly stated are that on 1.11.2013, the claimants

were traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration

No.KA-17-F-1441 as passengers from Bengaluru to

Dummi Village, on NH-4 near Sondekere Village,

Hiriyur Taluk, at that time, the driver of the bus drove

the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the lorries bearing Reg.HR-63A-

4827 and KA-50-6079. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and

were hospitalized.

3. The claimants filed petitions under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that they 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

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The respondent No.2 did not appear before

the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed

ex-parte.

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

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants themselves

were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Dr.Dinesh was

examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P-148. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 but

no documents got exhibited. 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 claimants sustained injuries. The

Tribunal further held that the claimant in MVC

229/2014 is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.391,000/- and claimant in MVC 230/2014 is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.250,000/-along with

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

to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been

filed.

IN MFA 3001/2017 (MVC No.230/2014)

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was doing

agricultural work and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per

annum and produced RTC Extracts to show that the

property stands in the name of the claimant. But the

Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as

Rs.5,000/- per month.

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

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

22.8% to his leg. But the Tribunal has erred in taking

the whole body disability at only 8%.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 15 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 KSRTC has raised following counter contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work

and produced RTC extracts. But he has not produced

any documents to establish his income. Due to the

injury, he has only lost the supervising capacity of the

property for the limited period and there is no loss of

any 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

22.8% to leg. PW-3 has only examined the claimant

and he is not the treated doctor. Therefore, the

Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body

disability at 8%.

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 for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

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 claims that he was earning

Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work

and produced RTC extracts. But he has not produced

any documents such as bank statement to establish

his income. In the absence of the same, 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 2013, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.8,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained c/o pain over left side of the neck and c/o

pain over the left side of the left leg. MRI left knee

abligue tear of posteriorhorn of medial mensiscus-

Grade-II medial meniscal injury. PW-3, the doctor has

stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered

disability of 22.8% to leg. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and

injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at

8%. The claimant is aged about 47 years at the time

of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age

group is '13'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.99,840/- (Rs.8,000*12*13*8%)

on account of 'loss of future income'.

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period

of 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.8,000*2 months)

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

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 15 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

enhance the compensation awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'

from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads is just and reasonable.

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 60,000 60,000 Medical expenses 90,000 90,000

Food, nourishment, 5,000 15,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 8,000 15,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 25,000 25,000 Loss of future income 62,400 99,840 Total 250,400 304,840 Rounded off 250,000 304,900

IN MFA 3000/2017 (MVC No.229/2014)

10. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was doing

agricultural work and earning Rs.4,00,000/- per

annum and produced RTC Extracts to show that the

property stands in the name of the claimant. But the

Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as

Rs.5,000/- per month.

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

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

68.82 to his hand, disability of 42.08% to his leg and

permanent disability of 78.72%. But the Tribunal has

erred in taking the whole body disability at only 15%.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 21 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.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the KSRTC has raised following counter contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.4,00,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work

and produced RTC extracts. But he has not produced

any documents to establish his income. Due to the

injury, he has only lost the supervising capacity of the

property for the limited period and there is no loss of

any 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 permanent

disability of 78.72%. PW-3 has only examined the

claimant and he is not the treated doctor. The

claimant had consulted PW-3 for the purpose of

obtaining disability certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal

considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has

assessed the whole body disability at 15%, which is

on the higher side.

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 for dismissal of the

appeal.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

13. 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 claims that he was earning

Rs.4,00,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work

and produced RTC extracts. But he has not produced

any documents such as bank statement to establish

his income. In the absence of the same, 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 2013, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.8,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained contusion size 5x4 cm on left shoulder,

induced wound size 3x2 cm over left, proximal 1/3rd of

shaft of left tibia and fibula, fracture of middle 1/3rd of

shaft of humorous and dislocation of left elbow joint.

PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered disability of 68.82 to his hand,

disability of 42.08% to his leg and permanent

disability of 78.72%. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and

injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of

the opinion that the whole body disability can be

taken at 22%. The claimant is aged about 42 years

at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable

to his age group is '14'. Thus, the claimant is

entitled for compensation of Rs.2,95,680/-

(Rs.8,000*12*14*22%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

The nature of injuries suggests 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.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months)

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

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 21 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

enhance the compensation awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'

from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads is just and reasonable.

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 70,000 70,000 Medical expenses 150,000 150,000 Food, nourishment, 5,000 20,000 conveyance and attendant charges

Loss of income during 10,000 24,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 30,000 30,000 Loss of future income 126,000 295,680 Total 391,000 589,680 Rounded off 391,000 589,700

14. In the result, the appeals are allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant in MVC 230/2014 is entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.304,900/- as against

Rs.250,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The claimant in MVC 229/2014 is entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.589,700/- as against

Rs.391,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the

compensation amount in both the cases along with

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization, within a period of