Karnataka High Court
Mahaboobi vs The Managing Director on 23 May, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO.7280/2018(MV)
BETWEEN:
MAHABOOBI
S/O RASOOL SAB,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O NO. 1, AIKUR VILLAGE,
SHAHPUR, YADAGIRI-585 223
NOW R/AT KACHOHALLI,
LAKSHMIPURA POST
M.M ROAD, DASANAPURA,
BAGNALORE- 560 091
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
SARIGE SADANA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. THE CHAIRMEN
INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND,
KSRTC, SARIGE BHAVAN, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 68.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.07.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.2530/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU [SCCH-23], 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 the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.2530/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 16.08.2016 at about 03.15 A.M.
on NH-150(A) near Channammanahalli Village, Imangala
Police Jurisdiction, the driver of NEKRTC Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-32-F-2075 driven the same in a rash
and negligent manner from Kalaburgi towards Bengaluru,
lost control over the Bus. Therefore, the Bus left the road
came towards right side (wrong side) and capsized on the
side of the road. 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 No.1
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. The accident was not occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. 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.
The respondent No.2 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-
parte.
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.Arjun S. Prakash was examined as PW-3
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and
Ex.P.14 to P.16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness
was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked on
their behalf. 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.2,94,683/-
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. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised
the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was
doing agricultural work and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as
merely as Rs.8,500/- per month.
Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent
physical disability at 44.56% to the right upper limb and
14.85% to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in
taking the whole body disability at only 10%.
Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient
for a period of 7 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 the treatment.
Considering the same, the compensation granted by the
Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' and other
heads are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to
award the compensation under the head of 'loss of
amenities' and 'loss of income during the laid up period'.
Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Corporation has raised following counter contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month, she has not produced any
documents to establish her income. Therefore, the Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature. Even though PW-3, the doctor has stated
in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability at
14.85% to the whole body, he is not the treated doctor.
The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the Wound Certificate has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 10%.
Lastly, considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable
compensation and it does not call for interference. 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.
The claimant has not produced any documents with
regard to 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 2016, the notional
income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
communited intercondylar fracture left humerus and
undisplaced fracture left olecranon. PW-3, the doctor has
stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered
permanent physical disability at 44.56% to the right upper
limb and 14.85% to the whole body. Therefore, taking into
consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and discharge
summary, I am of the opinion that the whole body
disability can be assessed 12%. The claimant is
aged about 53 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to her age group is '11'. Thus, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,480/-
(Rs.9,500*12*11*12%) 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
one month. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.9,500/- (Rs.9,500*1 month) under the
head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period
of 7 days in the hospital. 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
evidence of the doctor, considering the Wound Certificate
and Discharge Summary, I am of the opinion that the
claimant is entitled for the compensation under the head of
'loss of amenities' for Rs.40,000/-.
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 Court
different Heads Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 40,000 40,000
including mental agony
Medical Expenses 97,483 97,483
Loss of income during laid 0 9,500
up period
Loss of amenities 0 40,000
Loss of future income 1,12,200 1,50,480
Conveyance, Nourishment 45,000 45,000
and Nutritious Food
Total 2,94,683 3,82,463
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.3,82,463/-.
The Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest @ 6% per
annum 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/-
