Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs Managing Director, Karnataka ... on 14 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4190 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN
SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O GOPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MADARASABARADODDI
HARISANDARA AND KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADV.)
AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MANAGING DIRECTOR
K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE 560 027
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RADHA B P., ADV.)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.04.06.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.237/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT,
RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 4.6.2021 passed
by Addl. MACT and II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Ramanagara in MVC 237/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 19.4.2017 when the
claimant boarded the KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-42-F-0742 to reach her village
Madarasabaradoddi, at that time, the driver of the
said bus drove the same at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner and applied sudden brake. 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 she 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.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Madhusudhan was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P44. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
no document was produced. 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.87,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she
was doing agricultural, sericultural and dairy farming
work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the
Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as
Rs.7,000/- per month.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
10% to whole body. There is loss of income due to the
disability. But the Tribunal has erred in not awarding
any compensation under the head of 'loss of future
income'.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as
inpatient for a period of 6 days. Even after discharge
from the hospital, she was not in a position to
discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of
pain during treatment. Considering the same, the
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the
heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought
for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the KSRTC Company has raised following counter
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, she has not
produced any documents to establish his income.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
10% to whole body. The injuries sustained by the
claimant are minor in nature. The shoulder joint
resulting in partial temporary disability is reversible.
There is no permanent disability and there is no loss
of income due to the disability. Hence, the Tribunal
has rightly not awarded any compensation for 'loss of
future income'.
Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. Hence,
he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment of the Tribunal.
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.15,000/- per month. She has not produced any
documents to prove her 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 2017, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of left clavicle bone. PW-2, the
doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has
suffered disability of 10% to whole body. Due to the
injuries sustained and disability suffered by the
claimant, there is loss of income. Hence, the claimant
is entitled for 'loss of future income'.
Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor,
PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate,
the whole body disability can be taken at 10%. The
claimant is aged about 44 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is
'14'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.184,800/- (Rs.11,000*12*14*10%) on account
of 'loss of future income'.
The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant
must have been under rest and treatment for a period
of 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 6 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Due to the accident, the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also
undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain
during treatment and she has to suffer with the
disability stated by the doctor throughout her life.
Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.30,000/-.
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 25,000 25,000
Medical and incidental 35,000 35,000
expenses
Loss of income during 7,000 33,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000
Loss of future income 0 184,800
Total 87,000 307,800
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.307,800/-.
The KSRTC 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
DM
