Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Sheshagiri @ Girisha on 8 July, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                            1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          BEFORE

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

             MFA No.5498 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K. H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S., ADV. )

AND:

SHESHAGIRI @ GIRISHA
S/O. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O. KODAGIHALLI VILLAGE
AMRUTHUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJANNA, ADV. )

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT    AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT    AND    AWARD
DATED:29.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.324/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-XV,
KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,42,680/-
                                2



WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IS MADE.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') has been filed by the Corporation being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

29.01.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,

Kunigal in MVC No.324/2013.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 20.11.2012 around 03.30

P.M., the claimant was going by riding bicycle on

Public road nearby KEB circle to go to his native place.

At that time, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing

Registration No.KA-06-F-493 drove the same in a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the claimant. 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 he 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

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant

and the medical expenses are denied. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by

the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the petition.

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

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Mahesh was examined as

PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P18. On behalf of the respondents, one witness

was examined as RW-1 but no document was marked.

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.3,47,080/- along

with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

Corporation to deposit the compensation amount

along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has

been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has

raised following counter contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.35,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income. The

Tribunal while assessing the notional income of the

claimant, has considered Rs.9,000/- is on higher side.

Even as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority, the notional income

has been fixed for the accident occurred in 2012 as

Rs.7,000/-.

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant

are minor in nature. The whole body disability

assessed by the Tribunal 13% is on higher side.

Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and

considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other heads are on higher side.

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on

24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest

but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest is on the

higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal

filed by the Corporation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant

has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant

was earning Rs.35,000/- per month by doing

agriculture, timber work and milk vending.

Considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly taken

the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered physical

permanent disability of 40.25% to particular limb.

Considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the whole body disability at 13%.

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 overall

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable.

Lastly, in the document produced by the

claimant, his name has been shown as 'Girisha'.

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.35,000/- per month. He has not produced any

documents to prove his income. Therefore, 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 2012, the notional income has to be

taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. Therefore, the notional

income of the claimant has been reduced from

Rs.9,000/- to Rs.7,000/-

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained tenderness present over lower part of the

right leg, deformity over the middle of the right leg.

PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered physical permanent disability of

40.25% to particular limb. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and

injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability

at 13%. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier

applicable to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimant

is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,85,640/-

(Rs.7,000*12*17*13%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

In view of reduction of notional income of the

claimant, the compensation awarded under the head

'loss of income during laid up period' has been

reduced from Rs.27,000/- to Rs.21,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

heads is just and reasonable.

10. 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                30,000           30,000
Medical expenses                    7,000            7,000
Food, nourishment,                 29,400           29,400
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during                27,000         21,000
laid up period
Loss of future income               2,38,680      1,85,640
Future medical expenses               15,000        15,000
               Total               3,47,080      2,88,040

*The Tribunal has wrongly shown the total award amount as Rs.3,42,680/- instead of Rs.3,47,080/-

11. 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.2,88,040/- against Rs.3,47,080/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the interest

awarded by the Tribunal 9% is scale down to 6%.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the