Karnataka High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 29 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4911 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL KUMAR
S/O VEERESH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
KUNIGERI VILLAGE, VANAGURU POST
HETTHURU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573214.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURTHY D L., ADV.)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
29.12.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.767/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT,
SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
2
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 29.12.2017 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC
No.767/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 22.10.2015 at about 09.00
A.M., when the claimant was going in his bike bearing
Registration No.KA-02-JE-7815 towards Kunigere
Village, at that time near Basagula Village, the driver
of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-13-F-
1938 came from Uchhangi Village, drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner with high spped and
dashed against the bike 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. 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 got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the respondent,
one witness was examined as RW-1 but no documents
were 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.35,000/- 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 claimant has
contended that due to the accident, the claimant has
suffered three injuries. He has spent more than
Rs.60,000/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot
of pain during the treatment. The compensation of
Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on lower side.
Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Corporation has contended that three injuries
suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He has
not examined the doctor and he has not produced any
document to show that he has spend Rs.60,000/- for
medical expenses. Therefore, considering the
documents available on record and considering the
evidence of PW-1, the Tribunal has granted just and
reasonable compensation. 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.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained pain and swelling of head, pain and swelling
of knee and abrasion over knee which are minor in
nature. He has not examined the doctor and he has
taken the treatment as out patient. Therefore,
considering the evidence of PW-1, considering the
medical bills, discharge summary and the injuries
suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in
addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
another Rs.20,000/- can be awarded without 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.55,000/- against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
The Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest 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 the
interest for the enhanced compensation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
