Byregowda vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 8659 Kant

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

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

             MFA No.2382 OF 2018(MV)

BETWEEN:

BYREGOWDA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O 549/1, NEHA NILAYA
4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS
PALASUNDRAM LAYOUT
KOLAR - 563101.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.ANANDA B V., ADV.)

AND

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION
KOLAR - 563101.

                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADV.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT   AGAINST     THE   JUDGMENT    AND    AWARD
DATED:20.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.535/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
                             2




     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 claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed

by MACT & II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar in

MVC No.535/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.08.2014, the claimant

along with others were coming from Mysuru after

attending the State Government Employees

Conference at Mysuru and he was returning from

Mysuru in a KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-

07-F-1531. When the Bus has reached near Hale

Budanuru Village humps on Mysuru-Bengaluru road,

at 09.30 P.M., the driver of the said Bus drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the

same, the claimant, who was sitting on the back seat

of the Bus has jumped to a little height and fell down

in side the Bus on the right side where steel rod was

fixed and sustained injuries to his left leg and other

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, Dr.Shanmugam was examined as

PW-2 and another witness as PW-3 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 but

no document 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.61,802/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to

deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Ananda B. V., learned counsel for the

claimant has contended that due to the accident, the

claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was

inpatient in the hospital for a period of 2 days. He has

suffered lot of pain during the treatment. He has

spent Rs.38,202/- for medical expenses. The

compensation of Rs.61,802/- awarded by the Tribunal

is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement

of compensation.

7. On the other hand, Sri B. S. Karthikeyan,

the learned counsel for the Corporation has contended

that injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in

nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a

period of 2 days. Considering the age and injuries

suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has granted just

and reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeals.

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.

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained

inferior pole fracture left patella (comminuted) which

is grievous in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital

for a period of 2 days. He has examined the doctor as

PW-2. He has suffered lot of pain during the

treatment. He has spent Rs.38,202/- for medical

expenses. Considering the evidence of the doctor,

considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am

of the opinion that in addition to the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.50,000/- may be

awarded with interest.

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.1,11,802/-.

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

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA/-