Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjuna @ Mallan Gouda S/O ... vs Rajkumar S/O Berappa And Anr on 19 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
MFA No. 201422 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201422 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNA @ MALLAN GOUDA
S/O AMBHAPPA @ AMBHANNA
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI., AND COOLI,
R/O. GONAVAR VILLAGE,
DEODURGA,
NOW RESIDING AT STATION ROAD,
RAICHUR-584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
1. RAJKUMAR S/O BERAPPA
signed by
SACHIN AGE: MAJOR,
Location:
HIGH COURT
OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS
OF
KARNATAKA
BEARING NO. KA-36/F-898,
R/O. DRIVER KSRTC,
RAICHUR DEPOT,
TQ AND DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
2. THE KSRTC
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER/MANAGER
NEAR RTO CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHEERSINGH R.VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD.09.08.2023 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
MFA No. 201422 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.07.2019 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AND 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR
DISTRICT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.10/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Sudheersing R.Vijapur, learned counsel
who is representing respondent No.2
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in
MVC No.10/2017 dated 16.07.2019. Dismissal of the claim
petition filed by the appellant resulted in the present appeal.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
i) While the appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA 36 EK 9427, he was hit by the 2nd
respondent's bus bearing Registration No.KA 36/F.898 on
09.12.2016.
ii) The accident resulted in grievous injuries to the
appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
iii) A case was registered against the employee of the 2nd
respondent i.e. 1st respondent herein and he was charge
sheeted.
iv) The injuries sustained resulted in right lower limb
amputation at knee joint.
4. Arguing the matter Sri.Basavaraj R.Math submits
that, the accident solely occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the first respondent, who is employed by the second
respondent to drive his vehicle. The learned counsel submits
that only with an observation that the appellant failed to
produce his driving licence, the claim application was
dismissed. Learned counsel states that, the finding given thus
by the Tribunal is against the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of MANGLA RAM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2018) SCCR 691.
Sri.Sudheersing R.Vijapur, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 is also heard in this regard.
5. The Tribunal at paragraph No.10 of its order
observed that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. It also
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
observed that Ex.P2 copy of charge sheet reveals that the
Officer in-charge of police station charge sheeted first
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act with
an allegation that due to the rash and negligent driving of the
first respondent the accident occurred resulting in grievous hurt
to the appellant. There is no material on record to show that
the appellant was negligent in riding the motorcycle.
6. When the appellant has no way contributed for the
accident to occur, only on the ground that he has not produced
his Driving Licence, the respondents cannot be absolved from
their liability to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court is
of the holds that the view taken by the Tribunal that the
respondents are not entitled to pay the compensation is
unjustifiable and therefore is required to be interfered with.
7. Coming to the quantum that is awarded as
compensation, learned counsel for the appellant contends that,
the sum awarded as compensation is grossly low and that the
Tribunal failed to award any amount for loss of earning during
laid up period, for purchase of artificial limb and for future
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
medical expenses. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.13,77,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.2,00,000/-
towards loss of amenities, dis-figuration, dis-comfort,
disadvantages, inconvenience, sorrow, unhappiness,
frustration, joyless life, disappointment etc. It also awarded
Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/-
towards food, diet, nourishment, attendant charges,
conveyance and transport expenses. In total, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.18,27,000/- as compensation.
8. However, considering the fact that the Tribunal
failed to award any amount under the head loss of income
during laid up period, for future medical expenses and for
purchase of artificial limb, this Court is of the view that, a sum
of Rs.1,50,000/- requires enhancement. Also in the light of the
foregoing discussion, the entire compensation is required to be
paid by the respondents. Thus, the following
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3094
The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raichur, through orders in MVC No.10/2017 dated
16.07.2019 is enhanced by Rs.1,50,000/-.
The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
The second respondent is directed to deposit the entire
compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw
50% of the amount.
The remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any
Nationalized Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of
five years.
On completion of such period, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the same along with accrued interest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
