Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller vs Puttaswamy on 17 November, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.9169/2017 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., (RAJAHAMSA NO.KA.09.F.4804)
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-570 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027.                             ... APPELLANT

               (BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

PUTTASWAMY
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND HOTEL PARAMPARE
MYSURU-BENGALURU MAIN ROAD
SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.                     ... RESPONDENT

             (BY SRI P.S.DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE)


     THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.1279/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,40,180/- WITH INTEREST
AT 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF
THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.
                                        2



    THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-KSRTC., and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant-KSRTC.,

challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2017, passed

in M.V.C.No.1279/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil

Judge MACT., Srirangapatna ('the Tribunal' for short),

questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation.

4. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

5. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that on 15.08.2014 at about 7:15 a.m, on Mysuru

- Bengaluru road, in front of Parampare Hotel, at Srirangapatna,

when he was proceeding in a bike and stood by the side of road

divider with an intention to cross the road by that time the driver

of the KSRTC., bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner

and hit the petitioner's bike, thereby resulting in an accident.

Immediately, the injured was taken to the hospital and he was

an inpatient for a period of five days.

6. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he

examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2

and another witness as P.W.3 and got marked the documents as

Exs.P1 to P102. The claimant relied upon the document - Exs.P6

and P7 - Wound Certificates and also produced the Salary

Certificate-Ex.P9 that he was working as Manager in APMC., and

also produced the 52 medical bills in Exs.P11 to 62. On the other

hand, the respondent also examined two witnesses as RWs.1

and 2. The defense of the appellant that the vehicle was not

involved in the accident. In spite of the evidence adduced by the

KSRTC., examined RWs.1 and 2 and also the documents Exs.R1

to R16. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability

on the KSRTC.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

KSRTC., would vehemently contend that the compensation

awarded is on higher side. The learned counsel also would

submit that the injured has continued his job. In spite of

continuation of his job, the Tribunal awarded compensation on

the head of future loss of income, the same is an error

committed by the Tribunal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/claimant would submit that the accident was

occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

The driver of the bus did not stop the vehicle when the injured

was lying after KSRTC., bus hit the motorcycle, at that time, the

driver of the Car, who noticed the accident and the injured lying

on the road, he lost the control and hit the road divider. The

very contention that the bus was not involved in the accident

cannot be accepted.

9. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant-KSRTC., would contend that in spite of the

documents are produced, particularly, Ex.R1 discloses that the

bus was started at 7:13 a.m. and the accident was occurred in

between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m, the same has not been considered

by the Tribunal. So also Ex.R6, the correspondence letter

between ambulance and the informer, wherein, the time is

mentioned as 7:08 a.m. Both the documents are not relied upon

by the Tribunal. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

10. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, it is the case of the claimant

that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving

on the part of the KSRTC., bus and the claimant was standing in

between the road divider in order to cross the road, the bus

came and hit the motorcycle and when he was lying on the spot,

the Car came and hit the road divider. The contention of the

claimant is supported by the documentary evidence viz., the IMV

report, which also discloses the damage caused to the Car. The

very contention of the KSRTC., is that the bus not hit the

claimant and already there was an accident when the bus

reached the spot and a false complaint was given. Based on the

complaint, the Police have registered a case. The KSRTC.,

examined the driver and the Conductor as RWs.1 and 2.

11. It is the contention of the KSRTC., that the bus was

not involved in the accident and also it is emerged in the

evidence that there were 29 passengers in the bus. Except the

self interested witnesses evidence of RW.1 and RW.2, no

independent witnesses are examined and at least ought to have

examined the passengers of the bus in order to prove the

contention that no accident was taken place.

12. It is the contention that the complaint was given to

the Police; the Police have not registered a case. The KSRTC.,

has not proved the contention that what made the Police having

grudge against the driver of the KSRTC., bus to register the case

against the bus, when the bus was not involved in the accident,

the same is also not explained and ought to have examined the

Investigating Officer with regard to registration of the case and

investigation of the matter regarding filing of the charge-sheet.

Admittedly, R.W.1 categorically admits that when the charge-

sheet is filed against him and the same is not challenged. When

such being the material on record, it is not a case to reverse the

finding of the Tribunal in order to come to the conclusion that

the bus was not involved in the accident. Hence, I do not find

any force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant- KSRTC.,

13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the injured has sustained three fractures and he was

an inpatient for a period of five days. The Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.80,000/- on the head of Pain, Shock and

agony. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in

awarding the compensation of Rs.80,000/- on this head.

14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.1,39,870/- towards medical expenses, which is based on

the documentary evidence. Hence, it does not require any

interference.

15. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of five

days. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.6,000/- towards food and nourishment, attendant,

conveyance and traveling charges, which is not exorbitant.

16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is just and

proper and does not require any interference.

17. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.29,709/- towards loss of income during the treatment period

for a period of three months, which is on lesser side, the same is

taken for five months, it comes to Rs.49,515/- (9903x5).

18. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding

Rs.2,24,600/- towards permanent physical disablement. When

the claimant is an employee of APMC., and continued the job,

the question of awarding compensation on the head of

permanent physical disablement does not arise.

19. However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.40,000/- on the head of disappointment, discomfort,

frustration and loss of amenities. Having considered the nature

of injuries and considered the whole body disability of 21%, it is

appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.60,000/- as against

Rs.40,000/-.

20. With regard to the interest portion is concerned, the

contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

KSRTC., is that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest, which is

on higher side. The accident was occurred in the year 2015 and

the judgment was passed on 31.07.2017. In view of the

prevailing rate of interest in the Nationalised bank, the same is

reduced to 6% p.a.

21. In the circumstances, the claimant is entitled for the

reduced compensation of Rs.3,55,385/- as against

Rs.5,40,180/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment of the

entire amount.

22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.1279/2015, is modified reducing the compensation to Rs.3,55,385/- as against Rs.5,40,180/- with interest at 6% per annum

from the date of petition till payment of the entire amount.