Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Basappa Fakirappa on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
MFA No. 103514 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103514 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DHARWAD,
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE,
HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. BASAPPA FAKIRAPPA
@ DODDAFAKIRAPPA KOPPAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &
MASON, (NOW NIL),
R/O. GARJUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
Digitally signed DIST: BELAGAVI-59.
by JAGADISH T R ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V. A, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2272/2014, ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT,
BAILHONGAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10/06/2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
MFA No. 103514 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-corporation
challenging the saddling of entire liability as well as the award
of compensation by the judgment and award dated 10.06.2016
passed in MVC.No.2272/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.
MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. Heard Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the
appellant-corporation and Sri.Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel
for the respondent-claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-corporation
submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in saddling
the entire liability on the corporation as the respondent-
claimant was proceeding in the motorcycle on the national
highway and has abruptly took turn from right to left side
without noticing the vehicle coming behind him, which has
resulted in the accident. The Tribunal, without appreciating the
same, has held that the driver of the offending bus of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
corporation was negligent and saddled the liability on it. Hence,
he seeks to modify the liability to a certain extent on the rider
of the motorcycle as he has equally contributed to the accident
in question. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded
exorbitant compensation under the heads of pain & suffering,
loss of income during laid-up period, hence, seeks to reduce
the same by allowing the appeal. He also submits that the
Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 17% which is
on the higher side, hence, he seeks to re-assess the same by
taking note of the evidence available on record. He further
submits that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the total
compensation, which is on the higher side, hence, the same is
required to be re-assessed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
claimant supports the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that the police have filed the charge sheet
against the driver of the bus belonging to the corporation and
the said charge sheet is not challenged, hence, saddling of
liability on the corporation is justified. He submits that no doubt
some higher compensation is awarded under the head of pain &
suffering, however the same is required to be adjusted with
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
other heads. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under
other heads is just and proper and the same does not call for
any interference.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
corporation and the learned counsel for the respondent-
claimant and perused the material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that in the road traffic accident
that occurred on 24.04.2014 the respondent-claimant sustained
fracture of both the lower limbs. In order to prove the
disability, the treated doctor has been examined as PW-2, who
has assessed the disability at 35% to the right lower limb &
25% to the left lower limb. Considering the same, the Tribunal
has rightly assessed the disability at 17% which does not call
for any modification. Admittedly, the respondent-claimant has
not placed any evidence with regard to the income, hence, this
Court re-assesses the notional income of the respondent-
claimant at Rs.7,500/- placing reliance on the notional income
chart prepared by the KSLSA. Since the respondent-claimant
was aged about 43 years as on the date of accident, the
appropriate multiplier would be 14, which has been rightly
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
considered by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be
entitled to compensation under the head of 'loss of future
income due to disability' as under:
Rs.7,500 X 12 X 14 X 17%= Rs.2,14,200/-.
8. Taking note of the oral testimony of PW-2 doctor,
disability certificate at Ex.P-44 and other medical evidence
available on record and also keeping in mind that the claimant
has undergone surgery and implants are inserted and he was
in-patient for a period of 15 days, this Court is of the view that
the respondent-claimant would be entitled to compensation
under the head of pain & suffering Rs.50,000/- as against
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; Rs.30,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities & future unhappiness as against
Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent-claimant
is entitled to compensation of Rs.22,500/-(Rs.7,500 X 3)
under the head of loss of income during laid-up period as
against Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Insofar as the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of
medical expenses, incidental expenses and future medical
expenses is unaltered.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
9. Thus, in all, the respondent-claimant shall be
entitled to modified compensation as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 50,000
Loss of amenities & future un-happiness 30,000
Medical expenses 52,000
Incidental expenses 25,000
Loss of income during laid-up period 22,500
Loss of future income due to disability 2,14,200
Future medical expenses 25,000
Total 4,18,700
Thus, the respondent-claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,18,700/- as against Rs.4,68,920/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant-corporation with regard to contributory
negligence by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal is
justified in saddling the entire liability on the appellant-
corporation. The jurisdictional police, on completion of
investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the
offending bus. There is no other evidence available on record to
establish the factum of negligence on the part of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
respondent-claimant. Hence, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with saddling of liability on the appellant-
Corporation by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,18,700/- as against
Rs.4,68,920/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The modified compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
d) The appellant-Corporation shall deposit the
modified compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6190
e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement
shall be made as per award of the Tribunal.
f) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
Ct-an
