Manjunath vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 2634 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101703/2016(MV)
                          C/W.
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Nos.101704/2016,
101705/2016, 101706/2016, 101707/2016 & 101708/2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH, S/O NINGAPPA KALANGI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,
R/O: SHANKRIKOPPA VILLAGE IN
HANGAL TALUKA, NOW AT MARUTINAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
                                         ...APPELLANT
                             (IN MFA NO.101703/2016)
SMT.SUSHMA, W/O MANJUNATH KALANGI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,
R/O: SHANKRIKOPPA VILLAGE IN
HANGAL TALUKA, NOW AT MARUTINAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
                                         ...APPELLANT
                             (IN MFA NO.101704/2016)

KARIBASAPPA, S/O SHIVAPPA MULAGUND,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,
R/O: MOTEBENNUR VILLAGE IN
BYADAGI TALUKA, NOW AT MARUTINAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
                                         ... APPELLANT
                             (IN MFA NO.101705/2016)
                            2




SHIVARAJ, S/O BEERAPPA KURUBARA,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, AGRICULTURE
AND PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NADIHARALAHALLI VILLAGE
IN RANEBENNUR TALUKA,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
                                           ... APPELLANT
                               (IN MFA NO.101706/2016)

MARUTI, S/O BHEEMAPPA JADHAV,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NADIHARALAHALLI VILLAGE
IN RANEBENNUR TALUKA,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
                                           ... APPELLANT
                               (IN MFA NO.101707/2016)
BASAVARAJ, S/O HOLEBASAPPA BANAKAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NADIHARALAHALLI VILLAGE
IN RANEBENNUR TALUKA, HAVERI DISTRICT.
                                           ... APPELLANT
                               (IN MFA NO.101708/2016)
(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION
(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE KSRTC BUS
BEARING REG.NO.17/F-1277)
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(COMMON) (BY SRI.S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

MFA NO.101703/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.698/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.101704/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.699/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.101705/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.700/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.101706/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.701/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.101707/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.702/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.101708/2016 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.703/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal by the M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC

Nos.698/2014, 699/2014, 700/2014, 701/2014,

702/2014 & 703/2014, vide judgment and award

dated 26.09.2015.

2. Though these appeals are listed for

admission, with the consent of learned counsel

appearing on both sides, the same are taken up for

final disposal.

3. The parties to these appeals are referred to

by their rankings assigned to them before the

Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of these cases

are;

On 07.11.2013, the claimants were proceeding

in a K.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-

1277 towards Dharmastala and when the bus reached

near Nidigal of Kalmanja village in Belthangadi taluk,

the driver of the bus, who was driving the same in a

rash and negligent manner, lost control of the same

and dashed against a tree on the side of the road and

caused the accident. In the said accident, the

claimants suffered grievous injuries and they were

admitted in a private hospital for treatment. It is

under this background, they had filed claim petitions

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

before the Tribunal, which were partly allowed by the

Tribunal. Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants

are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all

the cases are on the lower side. The notional income

of the claimants has been taken on the lower side,

which has resulted in awarding meager

compensation. Accordingly she prays to enhance the

compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents submits that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs

no interference and prays to dismiss the appeals.

7. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and also perused the material on record.

8. The only question that arises for

consideration in all these appeals is with regard to

the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the

claimants by the Tribunal, having regard to the

injuries sustained by them and the treatment

undergone for the same.

9. In MFA No.101703/2016 (MVC

No.698/2014), the claimant was aged about 27 years

and he had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula

bones. The doctor, who had assessed the disability,

had deposed before the Tribunal that the disability to

the particular limbs in all was at 40%. The Tribunal

had assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

However, the Tribunal has erred in taking into

consideration the notional income of the claimant at

`5,000/- per month. In view of the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, for the purpose of disposing of the motor

vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath, the

notional income ought to have been taken at `7,000/-

per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the

age of the claimant would be 17. In the said event,

the claimant would be entitled for a sum of

` 1,14,240/- (`7000 x 12 x 17 x 8%) towards 'loss of

future income due to disability', as against `81,600/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain and

suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 50,000/- as against `30,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The compensation of ` 32,300/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains

unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the

claimant is entitled for sum of ` 10,000/- as against

`2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 14,000/- as against `10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of `30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `2,50,540/-

`2,50,540/ - as against

`1,65,900/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. In MFA No.100704/2016 (MVC

No.699/2014), the claimant was aged about 23 years

and she had suffered fracture injuries to her radius

and ulna bones as well as maxillar bones. The

doctor, who had assessed the disability, had deposed

before the Tribunal that the disability to the

particular limbs in all was at 40%. The Tribunal had

assessed the whole body disability at 8%. However,

the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration

the notional income of the claimant at `5,000/- per

month. In view of the income chart maintained by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

purpose of disposing of the motor vehicle accident

cases before the Lok Adalath, the notional income

ought to have been taken at `7,000/- per month.

The proper multiplier applicable to the age of the

claimant would be 18. In the said event, the

claimant would be entitled for a sum of ` 1,20,960/-

(`7000 x 12 x 18 x 8%) towards 'loss of future

income due to disability', as against `69,120/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain and

suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 50,000/- as against `30,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The compensation of ` 31,700/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains

unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the

claimant is entitled for sum of ` 10,000/- as against

`2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 14,000/- as against `10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of `30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `2,56 `2,5 6 , 660 / - as against

`1,50,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. In MFA No.100705/2016 (MVC

No.700/2014), the claimant was aged about 20 years

and he had suffered fracture injuries to his mandible,

tibia and fibula bones. The doctor, who had assessed

the disability, had deposed before the Tribunal that

the disability to the particular limbs in all was at

40%. The Tribunal had assessed the whole body

disability at 8%. However, the Tribunal has erred in

taking into consideration the notional income of the

claimant at `5,000/- per month. In view of the

income chart maintained by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, for the purpose of disposing

of the motor vehicle accident cases before the Lok

Adalath, the notional income ought to have been

taken at `7,000/- per month. The proper multiplier

applicable to the age of the claimant would be 18. In

the said event, the claimant would be entitled for a

sum of ` 1,20,960/- (`7000 x 12 x 18 x 8%) towards

'loss of future income due to disability', as against

`86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain

and suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 50,000/- as against `30,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The compensation of ` 30,400/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains

unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the

claimant is entitled for sum of ` 10,000/- as against

`2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 14,000/- as against `10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of `30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `2,55 `2,5 5 , 3 60 / - as against

`1,68,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

12. In MFA No.100706/2016 (MVC

No.701/2014), the claimant was aged about 18 years

and he had suffered fracture injuries to his pelvis and

fibula bones. The doctor, who had assessed the

disability, had deposed before the Tribunal that the

disability to the particular limbs in all was at 40%.

The Tribunal had assessed the whole body disability

at 10%. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking

into consideration the notional income of the claimant

at `5,000/- per month. In view of the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, for the purpose of disposing of the motor

vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath, the

notional income ought to have been taken at `7,000/-

per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the

age of the claimant would be 18. In the said event,

the claimant would be entitled for a sum of

` 1,51,200/- (`7000 x 12 x 18 x 10%) towards 'loss

of future income due to disability', as against

`1,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain

and suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 50,000/- as against `30,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The compensation of ` 31,200/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains

unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the

claimant is entitled for sum of ` 10,000/- as against

`2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 14,000/- as against `10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of `30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `2, 86, 86 , 400 / - as against

`1,90,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. In MFA No.100707/2016 (MVC

No.702/2014), the claimant was aged about 25 years

and he had suffered fracture injuries to his pelvis and

humerus bones. The doctor, who had assessed the

disability, had deposed before the Tribunal that the

disability to the particular limbs in all was at 40%.

The Tribunal had assessed the whole body disability

at 10%. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking

into consideration the notional income of the claimant

at `5,000/- per month. In view of the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, for the purpose of disposing of the motor

vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath, the

notional income ought to have been taken at `7,000/-

per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the

age of the claimant would be 18. In the said event,

the claimant would be entitled for a sum of

` 1,51,200/- (`7000 x 12 x 18 x 10%) towards 'loss

of future income due to disability', as against

`1,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'pain

and suffering', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 50,000/- as against `30,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The compensation of ` 31,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains

unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses', the

claimant is entitled for sum of ` 10,000/- as against

`2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 14,000/- as against `10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

and enjoyment in life', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of `30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `2, 86, 86 , 2 00 / - as against

`1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

14. In MFA No.100708/2016 (MVC

No.703/2014), the claimant was aged about 26 years

and he had suffered fracture injuries to his right

fibula and fracture of left pelvis. The doctor, who

had assessed the disability, had deposed before the

Tribunal that the disability to the particular limbs in

all was at 40%. The Tribunal had assessed the whole

body disability at 10%. However, the Tribunal has

erred in taking into consideration the notional income

of the claimant at `5,000/- per month. In view of the

income chart maintained by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, for the purpose of disposing

of the motor vehicle accident cases before the Lok

Adalath, the notional income ought to have been

taken at `7,000/- per month. The proper multiplier

applicable to the age of the claimant would be 17. In

the said event, the claimant would be entitled for a

sum of ` 1,42,800/- (`7000 x 12 x 17 x 10%)

towards 'loss of future income due to disability', as

against `1,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Towards 'pain and suffering', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 50,000/- as against `30,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of

` 33,600/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical

expenses' remains unaltered. Towards 'incidental

expenses', the claimant is entitled for sum of

` 10,000/- as against `2,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. Towards 'loss of income during laid-up

period', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 14,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment

in life', the claimant is entitled for a sum of

`30,000/- as against `10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. Therefore, in all the claimant is entitled for

a compensation of `2,80 `2, 80, 80 , 400/ 400 / - as against `1,86,600/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

15. The enhanced amount of compensation in

all these appeals shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from

the date of petition till realization. Since the liability

is not in dispute, the respondent owner-cum-insurer

of the offending bus is directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of compensation with interest

before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order. The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it

relates to disbursement and deposit, etc, shall be

applicable even to the enhanced amount of

compensation.

The appeals are accordingly partly allowed.

allowed

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab