Shanthakumar N R vs Bhaskar K V
2022 Latest Caselaw 9031 Kant

                          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.7949 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN

SHANTHAKUMAR N R
S/O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
CHOWLAGALA POST
BAGUR HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK.

PRESENTLY R/AT
SHANTHKUMAR N R
S/O RANGEGOWDA
C/O VISHWANATHA
UDAYAGIR EXTENSION
HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.
                                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. BYRAREDDY, ADV. FOR
SMT.KAVITHA H C., ADV.)

AND

1.    BHASKAR K V
      S/O VENKATESHAIAH
      R/O DOOR NO.31
                        2




     JAYANTHI NAGARA
     KENGAL POST
     PANDAVAPURA TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
     No. 412, BANDIPALYA
     ASHRAYA POST
     MYSORE-57001.

2.   THE MANAGER
     SRI RAMA GEN. INS COMPANY LTD
     E-8, APF RIGO, INDUSTRIAL SEETHAPURA
     JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022
     REPRESENTED BY
     THE MANAGER
     SRI RAMA GEN. INS CO LTD
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE
     FIRST CROSS, NEAR WILSON GARDEN
     BENGALURU-560027.

                                 ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, N.A., ADV. FOR
SRI. B,C, SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 39/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., 1ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT     OF   COMPENSATION.
                                  3




     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 17.3.2019 passed

by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

Hassan in MVC 39/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 25.8.2013 when the

claimant, being the driver of the KSRTC bus had

parked the bus on the left side of the road near

K.R.Pet, Agasarahalli on Mysoro-Channarayapatna

road to attend to nature call, at that time, motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-55-G-2677 being ridden by

its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to 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 respondents

appeared through their respective counsel and filed

written statements 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 himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Umesh M.S. was examined

as CW-1-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P8 and Ex.C-1 to C-5. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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.248,550/- along with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company 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, the claimant claims that he was working

as a KSRTC bus driver. He has sustained grievous

injuries CW-1, the doctor has stated in his evidence

that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of

40%. Due to disability, he is unable to do his regular

work and there is loss of earning capacity. But the

Tribunal has erred in not granting any compensation

towards 'loss of income due to disability'.

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 16 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

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 Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, the claimant was working as a KSRTC

driver. Even though CW-1, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent

disability of 40%, the claimant has failed to prove that

due to the disability, there is loss of income.

Moreover, he has continued his job. Therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation

under the head 'loss of future income due to

disability'.

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 just and reasonable compensation.

Thirdly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at

8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

side. 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.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained laceration over left leg, left leg deformity,

abrasion over right side of forehead, fracture of left

tibia and fibula and fracture of left ribs 8th and 9th.

CW-1, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered disability of 40%. The claimant

has failed to prove that due to the disability, there is

loss of income. Moreover, he has continued his job.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any

compensation under the head 'loss of future income'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 16 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 award a sum of

Rs.50,000/- in addition to compensation of

Rs.248,550/- awarded by the Tribunal.

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.2,98,550/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 8%

p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 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

excluding interest for the compensation awarded

under the head of 'future medical expenses' by the

Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM