Karnataka High Court
C Kumaraswamy vs Reliance General Insu. Co Ltd on 13 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.No.1433/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
C KUMARASWAMY
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
KSRTC CONDUCTOR
DADGE NO.895
HUVINAHADAGALI DEPO
R/O VIJAPURA
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSU. CO. LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MAGANUR BASAPPA BLDG.,
B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501
2. G.R. RAGHU
S/O G.N. RAMAKRISHNA
MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.AP-02-V-4759
R/O BALAJI NILAYA
1ST CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR
TUMKUR-572101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1];
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.08.2015)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-5,
CHITRADURGA AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 07.01.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.230/2012 on the file of
the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V,
chitradurga ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant is that this appellant was working as a
Conductor in a KSRTC bus and the accident was occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who has
parked the same on the left side of the road in the national
highway where there was no provision to park the vehicle and
the same has not been considered by the Tribunal while
considering the matter and fastened the apportionment of
contributory negligence to the extent of 50% in respect of
KSRTC bus and the driver of the lorry has not been examined
and the driver of the KSRTC bus also not examined and inspite
of it the Tribunal has committing an error in taking the
contributory negligence on both the sides.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 submits that first of all the KSRTC has not been made as
party to the case and apart from that width of the road is 30 feet
and there was a place to move the KSRTC bus instead of that
the bus came and hit the lorry which was parked hence, the
Tribunal has rightly discussed the same in paragraphs 12 and 13
of the judgment.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant also
would submit that the compensation awarded is very meager as
he has suffered 10 injuries and he was an inpatient for a period
of 21 days hence, it requires interference of this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit with regard to the quantum is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards discomfort, inconvenience and no compensation could
be granted in a case of continuation of job of the injured on the
ground of disability and though the compensation given on little
lesser side on the other heads but Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
towards discomfort, inconvenience includes the same.
7. Having heard the arguments of the respective
learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in taking the contributory negligence
on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus
deducting the amount of compensation of
50%?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation?
(iii) What order?
Point No.1:
8. It is not in dispute that the lorry was parked on the
left side of the road in a highway and no provision was made to
park the vehicle in the national highway. When such being the
case, the Tribunal ought not to have comes to the conclusion
that there was a negligence on the part of the driver of the
KSRTC bus and apart from that driver of the lorry has not been
examined and also the driver of the KSRTC bus and the claimant
is also the Conductor in the said KSRTC bus and the question of
contributory negligence on the part of the Conductor does not
arise even assuming that the driver of the KSRTC bus has
committed the negligence in driving the vehicle. When such
being the case, when the spot mahazar clearly discloses that the
lorry was parked on the left side of the road and apart from that
charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the lorry and the
same has not been questioned. When such being the case, the
Tribunal has committed an error in taking the contributory
negligence also on both the sides. Hence, point No.1 is
answered as affirmative.
Point No.2
9. The contention of the counsel appearing for the
claimant that the compensation awarded is very meager. Taken
note of the nature of the injuries and he was an inpatient for a
period of 21 days and also suffered fracture and the doctor has
assessed the disability of 40% to the particular limb and 13% to
the whole body. Admittedly he continued the job and the
Government order is placed before the Court to show that he has
assigned other work hence, there is no loss of future income.
Under such circumstances, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience due to
disability and the same ought to have been towards the
amenities. Having taken note of the injuries, the Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings
and the same is unaltered. Towards traveling expenses,
conveyance, attendants charges, diet, the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.5,000/- which requires interference since he
was an inpatient for a period of 21 days and on other heads, just
and reasonable compensation is awarded and hence, additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded thus, point No.2 is
answered accordingly.
Point No.3:
10. 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 07.01.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.230/2012 is modified setting aside
the 50% of contributory negligence on the part
of the appellant and directed the Insurance
Company to pay the entire compensation
amount of Rs.1,55,000/- along with additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith, if any.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
