Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumalatha N. Shetty vs The Depot Manager on 10 November, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.8246 OF 2018(MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMALATHA N. SHETTY
D/O NARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
YALLAMMA NILAYA
NEW POST OFFICE ROAD
OLD MARKET FIELD TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-516201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETAN V., ADV. FOR
SRI.RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPOT MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
COROPORATION
SAGAR DEPOT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STAE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
2
DAVANAGERE-577001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:06.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.470/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL
JMFC, MEMBER MACT, TARIKERE, 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 6.6.2018 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tarikere in MVC 470/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.12.2015, the claimant
was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-17-F-1281 from Bengaluru to go to her native
place, near Siddapura Gate, NH-206, Tiptur Taluk, at
that time, the driver of the another KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-17-F-1632 drove the same at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to
the bus in which claimant was traveling. 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 she 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.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied. The respondent No.1 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 claimant herself was
examined as PW-1 and doctor was examined as PW-2
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29.
On behalf of the respondents, one witness was
examined as RW-1 but not documents was 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 claimant sustained
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.125,342/- 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 the claimant has sustained injuries on
her cheek, face and other parts of the body and she
has lost her ten teeth. She was treated as inpatient
for a period of 4 days. She has stated that she is
unable to do her normal work with artificial teeth. She
has produced medical bills for Rs.38,802/-.
Considering the same, the overall compensation
granted by the Tribunal is 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 the claimant has
sustained simple injuries. Even PW-2 the doctor has
admitted in his evidence that there is no difficult for
the claimant to do normal work by having artificial
teeth. Considering the same, the Tribunal has granted
just and reasonable compensation and it does not call
for interference. Hence, she 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 accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained
injuries on her cheek, face and other parts of the body
and she has lost her ten teeth. She was treated as
inpatient for a period of 4 days. She has stated that
she is unable to do her normal work with artificial
teeth. She has produced medical bills for Rs.38,802/-.
Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant
and doctor and considering the nature of injuries and
medical records, I am inclined to award compensation
of Rs.25,000/- in addition to compensation of
Rs.125,342/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.150,342/-.
The KSRTC is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date
of realization, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
