Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri. Swamachari K.S on 17 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1824 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION
CHAMARAJANAGAR
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC,BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA K., ADV.)
AND
SRI. SWAMACHARI K.S.
S/O MANTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O KANNEGALA VILLAGE
HANGALA HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
PRESENT C/O PRAKASH
MANGALA VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571440.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.M.SANATH KUMAR, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.237/2017 ON THE
2
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT,
KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,41,300/-
WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the KSRTC being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.9.2018 passed
by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Kollegal in
MVC 237/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 2.6.2017 when the claimant
was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-10-L-7836 as a pillion rider from Mysuru to
their native village, on Gundlupet-Mysuru road, near
Agatagowdanahalli gate, at that time, KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-10-F-3262 being driven by
its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed to the vehicle of 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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law.
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.Neelanagowda Patil was
examined as CW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and Ex.C-4 to 8. On behalf of
the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1
and no document has been 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.641,300/- 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 KSRTC has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant claims that he was doing
carpenter work and earning Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- p.m.
per month. But he has not produced any documents
to prove the same. In the absence of proof of income,
the Tribunal has taken the notional income as
Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the higher side.
Even as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, for the accident has
taken place in the year 2017, the notional income is
taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by
the claimant and considering the age and avocation of
the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is excessive and on the higher side.
Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal by reducing
the compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised following counter contentions:
Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning
Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- per month. Considering the age
and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, CW-1, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent
disability of 44%. He was treated as inpatient for a
period of 45 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. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any
compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'.
Considering the nature of injuries, the overall
compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award 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.400/- to Rs.600/- 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 2017, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained head injury, 2x3 cm injury on right leg,
lacerated wound on forehead, fracture of right tibia
and fibula. CW-1, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent
disability of 44%. Therefore, taking into consideration
the deposition of the doctor, CW-1 and injuries
mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has
rightly taken the whole body disability at 15%. The
claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.316,800/- (Rs.11,000*12*16*15%) on account
of 'loss of future income'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 45 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Due to the accident, the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also
undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during
treatment and he has to suffer with the disability
stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering
the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and
sufferings, conveyance charges, future medical
expenses, nourishment charges' from Rs.80,000/- to
Rs.125,000/-.
Considering the nature of injuries, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under 'medical
expenses' 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, 80,000 125,000
conveyance charges,
future medical expenses,
nourishment charges
Medical expenses 129,300 129,300
Loss of future income 432,000 316,800
Total 641,300 571,100
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.571,100/- as against Rs.641,300/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
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.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
I.A.2/2019 does not survive for consideration,
accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
