N.E.K.R.T.C vs Nalla Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 3006 Kant

                           1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


             MFA No.200131/2022 (MVC)

BETWEEN:

N.E.K.R.T.C. THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SARIGE SADAN, OPP.K.B.N. HOSPITAL
STATION MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI
NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE
SARIGE SADANA, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
                                          ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NALLA REDDY S/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: GUEST LECTURER (NOW NIL)
R/O H.NO.8/62
PARAMESHWAR TEMPLE
GABBUR VILLAGE,
TQ.DEVADURGA
DIST.RAICHUR-584 111.
                                        ... RESPONDENT

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF
                                     2




THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND
HEAR   THE PARTIES AND          SET ASIDE THE CHALLENGING
JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2021 AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2021
IN MVC NO.644/2020, BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the respondent -

Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated

30.08.2021 in MVC No.644/2020 on the file of the I

Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowing the

claim petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the claimant that on

30.12.2018, the claimant was travelling in the respondent-

Corporation bus bearing registration No.KA-33/F-0271 and

when the said bus reached on NH-218, Kalaburagi-Jewargi

Main road, near Nadisinnur cross, the driver of the bus

dashed to another bus and as a result of the same, the

claimant sustained injuries and he was taken to United

Hospital, Kalaburagi for treatment. It is the case of the

petitioner that he was working as guest lecturer in a

college and was earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month.

As a result of the accident, the claimant has become

permanently disabled and therefore, the claimant has filed

MVC No.644/2020 before the Tribunal seeking

compensation.

4. On service of notice, respondent-Corporation

appeared and filed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal after

considering the pleadings on record, formulated the issues

for its consideration. In order to prove the claim petition,

the claimant was examined as PW.1 and examined the

doctor as PW.2 and produced 13 documents and same

were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.13. On the other hand,

respondent-Corporation has examined its driver as RW.1

and no documents were marked on behalf of the

respondent-Corporation.

5. The Tribunal after considering the material on

record, by its judgment and award dated 30.08.2021,

allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

compensation of Rs.3,47,550/- with interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the

Tribunal on quantum, respondent-Corporation has

presented this appeal.

6. Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal

has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.11,750/- per

month and same is required to be modified in this appeal.

He further contended that disability assessed by the doctor

at 10% to the whole body is contrary to the records and

therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, it is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident

occurred on 30.12.2018 involving the bus belonging the

respondent-Corporation. The Tribunal having taken note of

the documents on record, rightly affirmed the issue No.1

holding that the claimant has proved the negligence of the

driver of the bus in question. Insofar as award of

compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into

consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant, as per

wound certificate (Ex.P.6) and the evidence of PW.2 -

doctor, has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant has

sustained injuries to an extent of 30% to the limb and

accordingly, assessed the whole body disability at 10%

and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said finding

recorded by the Tribunal.

8. In respect of income of the claimant, Tribunal

had taken the notional income of the petitioner of sum of

Rs.11,750/- per month following the Lok Adalath chart of

this Court for the relevant year of accident i.e., 2018 and

as such, after following the law declared by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and others vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in

2009 ACJ 1298 and applying the appropriate multiplier of

14, determined the loss of future income at Rs.1,97,400/-

which is just and proper. Accordingly, I do not find any

acceptable ground to interfere with the award of

compensation made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR