Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Srinivasa on 12 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.No.7245/2014 (MV-I)
                           C/W.
                 M.F.A.No.3729/2015 (MV-I)

IN M.F.A.No.7245/2014

BETWEEN:

SRINIVASA
S/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC:VEGETABLE BUSINESS,
RES: TUBUGERE, TUBUGERE AT AND POST,
DODDBALLAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-85.                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. UMADEVAMMA M.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KSRTC BHAVAN, K.H.DOUBBLE ROAD,
       NEW SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-58.

2.     THE MANAGER
       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       DO-4, LUCKMAN MANZIL,
       3RD FLOOR, OLD-30, NEW 258,
       ANGAPPA NAICKMAN STREET,
       BENGALURU-85.                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                            2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.2530/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XII
ADDITIONAL    SMALL    CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU AND ETC.

IN M.F.A.No.3729/2015

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
RERESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   SRINIVASA
     S/O THIMMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     R/O TUBUGERE, TUBUGERE AT AND POST,
     DODDBALLAPURA ROAD,
     BENGALURU

2.   THE MANAGER
     ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
     DO-4, LUCKMAN MANZIL,
     III FLOOR, OLD-30, NEW 258,
     ANGAPPA NAICKMAN STREET,
     BENGALURU.                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
 R1-SERVED)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2014
                                     3



PASSED IN MVC NO.2530/2009 ON THE FILE OF TH XII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE AND ETC.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 26.08.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.2530/2009 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru ('the

Tribunal' for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the

respective respondents in both the appeals.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant met

with an accident on 07.04.2009 when he was proceeding as a

passenger from Doddaballapura to Bhashettyhalli-industrial circle

in a bus and when the bus was stopped, the other passengers

were also in queue to get down from the bus and when he was

stepped down, the driver moved the same without caring the

passengers with high speed in a rash and negligent manner as a

result, he has lost the control and fell down and sustained

injuries and due to the alleged accident, he has suffered

permanent disability and particularly, he has suffered crush

injuries and in order to substantiate his claim, examined the

doctor as PW2 and the doctor has assessed the disability of 57%

to the right upper limb and 19% to the whole body and the

Tribunal considered only 6% disability to the whole body while

considering the loss of future earning and the same is erroneous

and the said finding is against the expert evidence given by the

doctor. The counsel also submits that the injured was an

inpatient for a period of 28 days and the compensation awarded

on all the heads are very meager. Hence, it requires

interference.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA

No.3729/2015 vehemently contend that the Tribunal has

committed an error in fastening the liability on KSRTC since the

policy was in force and the documents are produced at Ex.R1

and R2 and though Insurance Company relied upon the

documents at Ex.R4, the same has not been substantiated and

ought not to have fasten the liability on KSRTC.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company in his argument vehemently contend that the Tribunal

in paragraph 23 discussed in detail and also in paragraph 22

taken the note of the evidence of RW2 and his claim is that the

policy was valid from 13.04.2009 to midnight of 12.04.2010 and

the accident was taken place on 07.04.2009 hence, as on the

date of the accident, the policy was not valid but the contention

that there was a deficit and only on payment of deficit, the policy

was issued on 13.04.2009 hence, the Insurance Company is not

liable for payment of compensation.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the documents

on record the question would arise with regard to the liability

and KSRTC is relied upon the documents at Ex.R1 and R2 and

the same discloses that the same was valid from 20.03.2009 and

the accident was occurred on 07.04.2009. The contention of the

Insurance Company is that there was a deficit but when the

policy was issued on 20.03.2009 and in terms of Ex.R1 and R2,

the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident.

Hence, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be

accepted. Hence, fastening the liability on KSRTC is erroneous

and it requires modification.

7. The other contention of the claimant is that the

Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and

reasonable compensation and in support of the claim made by

the claimant examined the doctor as PW2 and also produced

photograph at Ex.P10 and there was a crush injury to the right

hand and he was an inpatient for a period of 28 days and he was

subjected for surgery. When such being the case and when the

doctor has assessed the disability of 19% i.e., 1/3rd of 57% on

particular limb, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced it to 6%

and failed to take note of the crush injury and also the nature of

the injuries and the evidence of the doctor ought not to have

discarded and the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the same

to 6% to the whole body instead of 19%. Hence, it requires

interference.

8. Now coming to the question of quantum is

concerned, the accident was taken place in the year 2009 and he

was an inpatient for a period of 28 days and he was also

subjected for surgery and having taken note of the said fact and

also the nature of the injury, it is appropriate to enhance the

compensation of 40,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- towards pain

and sufferings. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period.

The accident is of the year 2009 and the notional income would

be Rs.5,000/- and the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of

Rs.5,000/- but fails to take note of the nature of the injury.

Hence, it is appropriate to consider the same that he was an

inpatient for a period of 28 days and the nature of the injury and

it is appropriate to consider the same for four months which

comes to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has

taken the medical expenses of Rs.8,356/- and the same is based

on the documentary evidence placed before the Court hence, it

does not requires any interference.

9. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.64,800/- towards

loss of future earning considering 6% disability and the same

requires to be reconsidered. In view of revisiting the disability to

the extent of 19% and the same has to be recalculated and after

recalculating the same taking the income of Rs.5,000/- it comes

to Rs.2,05,200/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 19%) as against

Rs.64,800/-. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of

Rs.10,000/- on the head of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges and the same is erroneous and

the Tribunal ought to have awarded on different heads. The loss

of amenities is concerned, the injured is aged about 19 years at

the time of the accident and he has to lead his rest of the life

with this disability hence, it is appropriate to enhance the same

to Rs.30,000/-. Apart from that, the claimant is also entitled for

the compensation on the head of food, nourishment, conveyance

and attendant charges since he was an inpatient for a period of

28 days and hence, in taking note of the fact that the accident is

of the year 2009, awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The

Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

future medical expenses and the same does not required

interference and in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.3,33,556/-.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal in MFA No.7245/2014 is allowed in part and the appeal in MFA No.3729/2015 is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 26.08.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.2530/2009 is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,33,556/- as against

Rs.1,33,156/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

(iii) Exonerating the liability on the Insurance Company is set aside and the fastening the liability on KSRTC is also set aside.

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

     (v)     The amount in deposit made by KSRTC is
             ordered     to    be       refunded     on     proper
             identification.


     (vi)    The Registry is directed to transmit the records