Karnataka High Court

Rangadasappa vs The Managing Director on 29 November, 2023

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:43179
                                                        MFA No. 5783 of 2022
                                                    C/W MFA No. 2904 of 2022



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5783 OF 2022 (MV)
                                             C/W
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2904 OF 2022(MV)


                   IN MFA 5783/2022

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
                         KSRTC DOUBLE ROAD
                         SHANTHI NAGAR
                         BENGALURU 560027
                         (RC OWNER OF BUS BEARING
                         NO KA 06 F 811 ON BEHALF OF
                         TUMAKURU DIVISON)
                         REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
Digitally signed
by                 2.    THE CHAIRMAN
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY                   INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND
Location: High           KSRTC DOUBLE ROAD
Court of                 SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560027
Karnataka
                         REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. F S DABALI.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   RANGADASAPPA
                   S/O KARIYAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                   AGRICULTURE
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:43179
                                    MFA No. 5783 of 2022
                                C/W MFA No. 2904 of 2022



AND LABOUR WORKER
R/O BAGGANDU VILLGE
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572143.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL   JUDGE,    ADDITIONAL   MACT,   JMFC,   HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,13,232/-
WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


IN MFA 2904/2022

BETWEEN:

RANGADASAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O BAGGANDU VILLGE
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572143.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
     KSRTC DOUBLE ROAD
     SHANTHI NAGAR
     BENGALURU 560027

2.   THE CHAIRMAN
     INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND
     KSRTC DOUBLE ROAD
                                 -3-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:43179
                                          MFA No. 5783 of 2022
                                      C/W MFA No. 2904 of 2022



     SHANTHI NAGAR
     BENGALURU 560027.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. F S DABALI.,ADVOCATE)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL   JUDGE,    ADDITIONAL    MACT,   JMFC,  HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

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

                        JUDGMENT

1. MFA No.5783/2022 has been filed by the Corporation

and MFA No.2904/2022 has been filed by the claimant

under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being aggrieved by

the judgment dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge & JMFC, Hiriyur in MVC No.77/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly

stated are that on 28.11.2018 at 3.30 p.m., the claimant

was proceeding towards his native place Bagganadu

Village by riding a moped bearing Regsitration No.KA-16-

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

EB-5905 and when he reached near J.G.Hally, in front of

H.B.Hotel, on the service road of NH-7, at that time, the

driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-16-F-

811 came from Sira side and took sudden U-turn in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed dashed to his

moped. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant

fell down and 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

charges, 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 respondents 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

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

eye of law. 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.

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 Dr.Shivanna Reddy was examined as PW-2 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of

the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. 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.2,13,232/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

and directed respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present

appeals have been filed both claimant and Corporation.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised

the following contentions:

a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to negligence on

the part of claimant. When he was proceeding in service

road, he was in the middle of the road and when the driver

of the bus has entered into the service road, the claimant

came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

Bus. Due to impact, he fell down and suffered injuries.

Therefore, he contended that it is very clear from the

Sketch, Mahazar and IMV Report, the claimant himself was

negligent in causing the accident.

b) Secondly, even though the claimant claims that he

was an agriculturist and doing construction labour work

and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the notional

income of Rs.11,750/- p.m. assessed by the Tribunal is on

higher side.

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

c) Thirdly, there was inconsistency in respect of injuries

suffered by the claimant. In the medical records produced

by the claimant from the Government Hospital, Hiriyur and

K. S. Hegde Charitable Hospital, inconsistency is not

proved. Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the version of

the doctor that the claimant has suffered whole body

disability at 40%. Considering the medical records, the

whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 10% is

also on higher side.

d) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. Even after discharge from the

hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular

work. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment.

Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and

sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower

side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the

Corporation.

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

claimant has raised following counter contentions:

a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to negligence of

driver of the KSRTC Bus. When he entered into the service

road of NH-4, took sudden U-turn without observing the

traffic rules with rash and negligent manner with high

speed and as a result of the same, the Bus was dashed the

Moped vehicle of the claimant. He further contended that

the sketch produced by the claimant is also clearly shows

that the driver of the KSRTC Bus took sudden U-turn and

entered into the service road with high speed and dashed

to the Moped. Due to impact, the claimant sustained

grievous injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the

same, has rightly held that the driver of the Bus alone was

negligent in causing the accident.

b) Secondly, even though the claimant claims that he

was aged about 60 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per

month, he has not produced any documents to establish

his income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

income of Rs.11,750/- assessed by the Tribunal is on

lower side.

c) Thirdly, the claimant sustained three fractures and

he was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 11 days. He

has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has

assessed the permanent physical disability of the claimant

to an extent of 60% to particular limb and 40% to the

whole body. But the Tribunal has assessed the whole body

disability at 10% is on lower side.

d) Fourthly, considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other incidental expenses are on lower side. Hence, he

sought for enhancement of compensation by allowing the

appeal filed by the claimant.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

REG : NEGLIGENCE

9. The case of the claimant is that on 28.11.2018 at

3.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding towards his native

place Bagganadu Village by riding a moped bearing

Regsitration No.KA-16-EB-5905 and when he reached near

J.G.Hally, in front of H.B.Hotel, on the service road of NH-

7, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing

Registration No.KA-16-F-811 came from Sira side and took

sudden U-turn in a rash and negligent manner with high

speed dashed to his moped. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous

injuries and was hospitalized.

10. To prove the case of the claimant, he has examined

himself as PW-1. He has reiterated the statement made in

the claim petition. He has produced complaint as per

Ex.P1, FIR as per Ex.P2, Wound Certificate as per Ex.P3,

MLC Extract as per Ex.P4, Mahazar as per Ex.P9 and

Sketch as per Ex.P10. To disprove the case of the

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

claimant, the respondent has examined the driver of the

Bus as RW-1 and produced one document i.e.

authorization letter as per Ex.R1.

11. It is very clear from the documents produced by

PW-1 that complaint, FIR, MLC, Mahazar, sketch and

charge sheet has corroborated with the case of the

claimant. It is also very clear from the sketch that the

driver of the Bus took sudden U-turn from the national

highway and entered into the service road with rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the

Moped vehicle of the claimant. Due to impact, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the driver of the

Bus alone was negligent in causing the accident. The

Tribunal has justified in holding that the driver of the Bus

alone was negligent in causing the accident.

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

REG : QUANTUM

12. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month. He has not produced any documents to prove

his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income,

notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines

issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

for the accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional

income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

13. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

left collies fracture, left 8th and 9th ribs fracture and

compressed fracture of T-11 vertebra. The doctor in his

evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered

permanent physical disability of 60% to particular limb and

40% to the whole body. PW-2 is not a treated doctor and

the claimant has not explained the reasons that why he

has not examined the treated doctor. There is

inconsistency in the medical records produced by the

claimant issued from Government Hospital, Hiriyur and

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

K. S. Hegde Charitable Hospital. Even the claimant has not

explained the reasons for inconsistency in the said medical

records. Therefore, taking into consideration the

deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the

wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole

body disability at 10%. The Tribunal has rightly considered

the multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant

as '9'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.12,500*12*9*10%) on account of

'loss of future income'.

14. The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of

2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500*2 months)

under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

15. The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than

11 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received

further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:43179

compensation awarded under the head of 'food,

nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges' from

Rs.11,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

16. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer

with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life.

Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-

and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.6,000/-

to Rs.40,000/-.

17. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and

reasonable.

18. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

compensation:

- 15 -

                                              NC: 2023:KHC:43179






                               As awarded          As awarded
                                 by the              by this
     Compensation under
                                Tribunal              Court
       different Heads
                                      (Rs.)           (Rs.)

 Pain and sufferings                    40,000           50,000

 Medical expenses                          5,832          5,832

 Food, nourishment,                     11,000           20,000
 conveyance and
 attendant charges

 Loss of income during                  23,500           25,000
 laid up period

 Loss of amenities                         6,000         40,000

 Loss of future income                1,26,900         1,35,000

                  Total               2,13,232        2,75,832