Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, ... vs Ningappa S/O Biddappa Haravi on 15 February, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA NO.103064/2014
C/W.
MFA NO.103045/2014 &
MFA NO.103046/2014 (MV)
IN MFA NO.103064 OF 2014
BETWEEN
HAYATHSAB S/O JAMALSAB @ KOTIHAL,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: TEMPO DRIVER WORK &
BUSINESS, R/O: KUPPELUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M. H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC RAMANAGAR DIVISION,
DIST: RAMANAGAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I. C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.475/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
2
MACT, RANEBENNUR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.103045/2014
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, RAMANAGAR
DIVISION, DT: RAMNAGAR,
RPTD.BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.I. C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
HAYATHSAB S/O JAMALSAB @ KOTIHAL,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: TEMPO DRIVING WORK &
BUSINESS, R/O. KUPPELUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DT: HAVERI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M H PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:07.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.475/2013, ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,56,500/-
ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.103046/2014
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, RAMANAGAR DIVISION,
DT: RAMANAGAR,
RPTD.BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
3
NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.I C PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . NINGAPPA S/O BIDDAPPA HARAVI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COCONUT AND
KIRANI STALL, BUSINESS,
R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DT: HAVERI.
2 . MALLESHAPPA S/O NINGAPPA HARAVI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLI WORK,
R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DT: HAVERI.
3 . BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA HARAVI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLI WORK,
R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DT: HAVERI.
4 . SANTOSH S/O NINGAPPA HARAVI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLI WORK,
R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DT: HAVERI
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-4 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:07.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.476/2013, ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,39,200/-
ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
All the three appeals arise out of common judgement
and award passed in MVC Nos.475/2013 and 476/2013 on
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Additional
MACT, Ranebennur.
2. MFA No.103064/2014 arises from MVC
No.475/2013 which was filed by injured Hayathsab S/o
Jamalsab Gusihal @ Kotihal claiming compensation under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for the injuries sustained
by him in an accident that occurred on 09.02.2013
involving matador bearing No.KA-05/8136 and KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-42/F-293. It is stated that the injured was
doing business as well as driving work and was earning a
sum of Rs.20,000.00 per month. He was aged 40 years as
on the date of accident.
MFA No.103045/2014 as well as MFA
No.103046/2014 are filed by the NWKRTC questioning the
liability fastened on it in the above stated jugdement and
award.
The claimants i.e., dependents of the deceased
Giriyamma Haravi were before this Court in MFA
No.103065/2014 claiming enhancement of compensation
not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded under the above said judgement and award. The
said appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri I. C. Patil for
NWKRTC. There is no representation for the respondents
and appellant in MFA No.103064/2014.
4. The learned counsel, Sri I. C. Patil would
submit that NWKRTC is before this Court only questioning
the liability fastened on it in the judgement and award in
question. He submits that the accident had taken place
between two vehicles and the Tribunal committed an error
in fastening the liability on NWKRTC and the driver of the
bus. It is his submission that the accident had taken place
due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of
bus as well as tempo. Further, he submits that the Tribunal
failed to appreciate the materials on record, particularly
EX.P6 and P7 sketch as well as motor vehicle accident
report.
5. He invites attention of this Court to sketch and
submits that the driver of the tempo came from the
opposite side and dashed to NWKRTC bus. Thus, he prays
for giving a finding to the effect that the driver of the
matador has also contributed his negligence to the
occurrence of the accident.
6. MFA No.103064/2014 is filed by the injured. As
he is unrepresented, we have gone through the records
and it is seen that the appeal for enhancement of
compensation is filed stating that the income assessed by
the Tribunal at Rs.5,000.00 per month is on the lower side
and the injured has prayed for assessing the income based
on the materials on record. Further, it is stated that the
Tribunal has assessed the whole-body disability at 15%
even though the doctor has deposed that the injured has
suffered 40% disability to a particular limb. Thus, the
injured-appellant has prayed for enhancement of
compensation. The Tribunal taking the income of the
injured at Rs.4,500.00 per month and taking 15%
disability awarded total compensation of Rs.3,56,500.00
fastening the liability on the respondent-NWKRTC.
7. The first question that would arise for
consideration is, whether there is contributory negligence
on the part of both the drivers of the vehicle?
8. The accident that occurred on 08.02.2013
involving Matador bearing No.KA-05/8136 and KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-42/F-293 is not in dispute in this appeal so
also, the injuries suffered by the appellant in MFA
No.103064/2014.
9. We have perused Ex.P6 and P7. Ex.P6-sketch
indicates that even though it was four lane highway, one
side of the road leading from Ranebennur to Harihar was
closed and the other side of the road from Harihar to
Ranebennur was operational. It is stated that repair work
was going on in that portion of the road leading to Harihar
from Ranebennur. The sketch indicates that the Tempo
was moving from Ranebennur to Harihar on the left side of
the right lane of the double road. The KSRTC bus was
coming from Harihar to Ranebennur on the right side of
the road that was operational i.e., from Harihar to
Ranebennur. The sketch also indicates that the KSRTC bus
was on the extreme right side of the road which led to the
accident. Thus the Ex.P7 Motor Vehicle accident report
indicates that both the vehicles are damaged on front side.
It would not indicate anything to come to the conclusion
that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
Tempo. The Tribunal on careful examination of Ex.P6 and
P7 has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had
taken place solely due to the negligence of the driver of
the KSRTC bus. We do not see any ground to interfere with
the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. Thus, the contention
of the appellant-NWKRTC is liable to be rejected.
10. With regard to the prayer of the appellant in
MFA No.103064/2014 for enhancement of compensation, it
is seen that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal
at Rs.4,500.00 per month of the injured is on lower side.
The accident is of the year 2013. In the absence of any
material to establish the income, the Court and Tribunal
shall have to assess the notional income on guess work.
This Court and Lok-adalath while settling the accidental
claim of the year 2013 would normally assess the income
at Rs.7,000.00 per month based on chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is prepared
taking into consideration various factors including
minimum wages. In the instant case also in the absence of
any material to establish the income, we deem it
appropriate to assess the income of the injured at
Rs.7,000.00 per month.
11. The injured suffered fracture of tibia and fibula
bones with blunt trauma abdomine. The injured claimant
has examined PW3-doctor in support of his case. The
doctor in his evidence has deposed that the claimant has
suffered 60% disability to a particular limb. When the
doctor has deposed 60% disability to a particular limb, this
Court would normally assess the whole-body disability at
1/3rd of the disability stated by the doctor to a particular
limb. Therefore, in the instant case the disability of the
injured will have to be re-assessed at 20% instead of 15%
assessed by the Tribunal. Thus, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal on loss of future income on account of
permanent physical disability is modified as follows:
Rs.7,000.00 (income per month) x 12 (months) x 15
(multiplier) x 20/100 (disability at 20%) = Rs.2,52,000.00
12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
other heads is not disturbed. Hence, the claimant is
entitled for the following modified compensation:
Pain and suffering Rs.35,000.00
Medical expenses, diet Rs.1,78,000.00
nourishment and
attendant charges
Loss of income during Rs.12,000.00
laid up period
loss of future income on Rs.2,52,000.00
account of permanent
physical disability
Loss of amenities and Rs.10,000.00
enjoyment of life
Total Rs.4,87,000.00
13. Hence, the following:
ORDER
MFA No.103045/2014 as well as MFA
No.103046/2014 are rejected.
MFA No.103064/2014 is allowed in part.
The judgement and award dated 07.08.2014 passed
in MVC No.475/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur is modified.
The claimant in MFA No.103064/2014 (MVC
No.475/2013) is entitled for Rs.4,87,000.00 as against
Rs.3,56,500.00 awarded by the Tribunal.
The compensation amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
Amount in deposit, if any, before this Court be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
ssp
