Karnataka High Court

Sri Purushotham vs The Managing Director on 2 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:30616
                                                         MFA No. 3939 of 2019
                                                     C/W MFA No. 1316 of 2019



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3939 OF 2019 (MV)
                                               C/W
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1316 OF 2019(MV)


                      IN MFA 3939/2019
                      BETWEEN:
                      SRI PURUSHOTHAM
                      S/O MARIYAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
                      RESIDING AT NO.395/2, 1ST CROSS
                      1ST MAIN, SUGGAPPA LAYOUT
                      LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Digitally signed by   B.M.T.C
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH
                      SARIGE BHAVAN
COURT OF              SHANTHINAGAR
KARNATAKA
                      BENGALURU - 560 027.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. SOHANI A HOLLA.,ADVOCATE)

                          THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18/09/2018,
                      PASSED IN MVC NO.1287/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
                      ACMM., & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
                      MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30616
                                       MFA No. 3939 of 2019
                                   C/W MFA No. 1316 of 2019



FOR     COMPENSATION   AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

IN MFA 1316/2019
BETWEEN:


THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C, SHANTHINAGAR
KH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOHANI A HOLLA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI PURUSHOTHAM
S/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.395/2, 1ST CROSS
1ST MAIN, SUGGAPPA LAYOUT
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B.,ADVOCATE)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18/09/2018,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1287/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
ACMM., & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
MACT,    BENGALURU,     AWARDING        COMPENSATION     OF
RS.3,15,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT
(EXCEPT FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES)

      THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30616
                                      MFA No. 3939 of 2019
                                  C/W MFA No. 1316 of 2019



CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. MFA No.3939/2019 is filed by the claimant and MFA

No.1316/2019 is filed by the Corporation under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the judgment dated

18.09.2018 passed by the XXI ACMM & XXIII ASCJ,

Bengaluru in MVC No.1287/2018.

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

stated are that on 12.12.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., the

claimant was crossing the road near Ganghi Circle,

Platform road, Sheshadripuram, Benagluru to go to reach

BMTC Bus stop, which is at opposite side with due caution

by observing all the traffic rules and regulations. At that

time, the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration

No.KA-01-FA-148 came from the Nataraja Theater with

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to

endangering to human life and dashed to the claimant. As

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant 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

significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance

charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared

through counsel and filed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,

examined himself as PW-1, Dr. Ramesh was examined as

PW-2 and another witness was examined as PW-3 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

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

but no document was exhibited. 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.3,15,500/-

along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the

Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have

been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised

the following submissions:

a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to the claimant's

own negligence. He had attempted to board the moving

bus in a hurried and negligent manner, lost control, and

fallen in front of the bus and sustained simple injuries. The

Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

According to the MLC report, the claimant had consumed

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

alcohol at the time of the accident, which impaired his

control over his body, causing him to lose balance and fall

from the bus. The Tribunal erred in holding the bus driver

solely negligent in causing the accident.

b) Secondly, the assertion of claimant that he was

earning Rs.18,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated

due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of

proof of income, the notional income assessed by the

Tribunal is on higher side.

c) Thirdly, the claimant examined the doctor as PW-2.

In his testimony, the doctor deposed that the claimant had

suffered a physical disability of 40% in the right lower

limb. However, the Tribunal's assessment of 15% whole

body disability appears to be on the higher side.

d) Thirdly, 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 just and reasonable and it

does not warrant interference.

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

e) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this

Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v-

Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the

compensation amount appears excessive.

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the

Corporation sought to allow the appeal filed by the

Corporation by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant.

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

claimant has raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, when the claimant was crossing the road, the

driver of the Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the claimant. As a result of the

impact, the claimant fell and suffered injuries. Although

the respondent suggested during the cross-examination of

PW-1 that the claimant was crossing the road at a location

without a zebra crossing, the respondent's claim that the

claimant was attempting to board a moving bus and lost

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

balance, resulting in a fall, is contradicted by the evidence

and material on record. She further submitted that the

MLC report mentioned the claimant had consumed alcohol,

but the percentage of alcohol consumption was not

specified. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the

evidence of the parties, correctly concluded that the bus

driver was negligent in causing the accident.

b) Secondly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly

income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, despite evidence

showing he earned Rs.18,000/- per month by working as a

Electrician.

c) Thirdly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-

2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body

disability at 15%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor

that the claimant suffered 40% disability to right lower

limb and 20% to whole body.

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

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 22 days. Even after discharge from the

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

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

work. He has suffered lot of pain during 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.

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the

appellant sought to allow the appeal filed by the appellant

by dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and

original records.

9. The case of the claimant is that on 12.12.2018 at

about 9.00 p.m., the claimant was crossing the road near

Ganghi Circle, Platform road, Sheshadripuram, Benagluru

to go to reach BMTC Bus stop, which is at opposite side

with due caution by observing all the traffic rules and

regulations. At that time, the driver of the BMTC Bus

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-148 came from the

Nataraja Theater with high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner so as to endangering to human life and

dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

hospitalized.

10. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition

before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much

below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in

the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must

be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can

arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding

compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or

to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a

summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of

the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act

are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence,

strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in

this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

11. Even though the respondent has taken a contention

that the claimant had attempted to board the moving bus

in a hurried and negligent manner, lost control, and fallen

in front of the bus and sustained simple injuries, to prove

the same, except examining the driver of the Bus as RW-1

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

no other independent witness has been examined. On the

other hand, the respondent suggested during the cross-

examination of PW-1 that the claimant was crossing the

road at a location without a zebra crossing. Therefore, the

accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant

himself.

12. Immediately after the accident, the claimant filed a

complaint against the bus driver, alleging that while

crossing the road, the driver operated the bus in a rash

and negligent manner, hitting the claimant. The Police

registered an FIR and following a thorough investigation,

filed a charge sheet against the bus driver. In light of

these facts, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the bus

driver was solely responsible for the accident due to his

negligence.

13. The MLC report only mentioned that the claimant had

a breath smell of alcohol, but did not specify the quantity

consumed. The opposing side failed to produce any

evidence that the claimant's alcohol consumption caused

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

the accident by leading to a loss of control and subsequent

fall. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal correctly

answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative.

14. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.18,000/-

per month. But he has not produced any documents to

substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof

of income, notional income has to be assessed. According

to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year

2018, notional income shall be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

15. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

CLW over medial side of right ankle, tenderness over

middle of right thigh and abrasion over right knee. The

doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has

suffered physical disability of 40% from right lower limb

and 20% disability to the whole body. Therefore, taking

into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries

mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

rightly taken the whole body disability at 15%. The

claimant is aged about 49 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '13'.

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.2,92,500/- (Rs.12,500*12*13*15%) on account of

'loss of future income'.

16. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3

months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months)

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

17. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was

hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 22 days in the

hospital. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment

as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor,

I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30616

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss

of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

18. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and

reasonable.

19. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

compensation:

                            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                     12,286         12,286

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

 Loss of income during                16,000         37,500
 laid up period

 Loss of amenities                    20,000         40,000

 Loss of future income               187,200        292,500
                                - 16 -
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:30616






     Future medical expenses              20,000          20,000

                   Total                3,15,486       4,72,286

                Rounded off             3,15,500       4,72,300

20. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The appeals are disposed of.

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.4,72,300/-.

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the

interest at 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is

scale down to 6%.

e) The Corporation directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest

@ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this