Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller Ksrtc vs Siddaiah on 5 August, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2857 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6126 OF 2021 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6127 OF 2021 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6137 OF 2021 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2853 OF 2022 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2876 OF 2022 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.2857/2022:
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION
CHICKMAGALURU - 577 101
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-18/F-0794)
Digitally REPRESENTED BY
signed by B ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
LAVANYA ... APPELLANT
Location: (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA RAVIKUMARA
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
HASSAN CITY
HASSAN - 573 201
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1525/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,01,250/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF THE AWARD AMOUNT, WITH A PRAYER TO
SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD.
IN MFA NO. 6126 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAIAH
S/O.LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. RAVIKUMARA
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK- 573 201
HASSAN DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
HASSAN CITY
HASSAN - 573 201
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION - 577 101
CHICKMAGALURU
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1527/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION, WITH A PRAYER TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.6127 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
RAVIKUMARA
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
HASSAN CITY
HASSAN - 573 201
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION - 573 201
CHICKMAGALURU
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1525/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION, WITH A PRAYER FOR
ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.6137 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SIDDAIAH
S/O.LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
HASSAN CITY - 573 201
HASSAN
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION - 573 201
CHICKMAGALURU
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1526/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION, WITH A PAYER FOR
ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 2853 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION
CHICKMAGALURU - 577 101
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-18/F-0794)
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDAIAH
S/O.LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
HASSAN CITY
HASSAN - 573 201
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1526/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,54,900/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF THE AWARD AMOUNT, WITH A PRAYER TO SET
ASIDE/MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD.
IN MFA NO.2876 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION
CHICKMAGALURU - 577 101
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-18/F-0794)
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDDAIAH
S/O.LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2. RAVIKUMARA
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
RANGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O LAKSHMIPRASAD
DYAVAMMA BADAVANE
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
MFA No. 2857 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6126 of 2021
MFA No. 6127 of 2021
AND 3 OTHERS
HASSAN CITY
HASSAN - 573 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1527/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,58,800/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF THE AWARD AMOUNT, WITH A PRAYER TO
SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD.
THESE APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are arising out of the common
accident but separate Judgment & Award dated 29th
September 2021 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.1525/2019, MVC No.1526/2019 and MVC
No.1527/2019.
2. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 11.5.2019 at about 5.45 p.m., one Sri
Ravikumar was driving an auto bearing Registration
No.KA-46/6538 alongwith inmates viz., Lakshmamma
(mother of Ravikumar), Siddaiah (father of Ravikumar)
and others. When the auto reached near Deveeramma
temple Arch situated near Hagare on Hassan - Belur road,
one KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18 /F0794
came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the autorickshaw, as a result
Smt. Lakshmamma died on the spot and Sri Siddaiah and
Sri Ravikumar sustained injuries. In view of the accident,
dependents of the deceased Lakshmamma filed claim
petition in MVC No.1527/2019 and Ravikumar and
Siddaiah filed claim petitions in MVC Nos.1525/2019 and
MVC 1526/2019 seeking compensation against the
Corporation. The claim petitions came to be allowed
awarding compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by
the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal, the
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
claimants as well as the Corporation filed these appeals
before this Court.
4. For the sake of convenience, these matters shall
be dealt with in three batches.
I. In MFA 6126/2021 and MFA 2876/2022:
(CASE OF DEATH OF LAKSHMAMMA):
5. These two appeals - MFA Nos.6126/2021 and
2876/2022 are preferred by the claimants and the
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
('Corporation' for short) respectively challenging the
common judgment and award dated 29th September 2021
passed in MVC No.1527/2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior
Civil Judge & CJM and Member, Addl. M.A.C.T, Hassan (for
short 'the Tribunal'). Claimants are aggrieved by the
inadequate compensation, whereas the Corporation is
aggrieved by the exhorbitant compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
6. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.14,58,800/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum and
directed the Corporation to deposit the amount alongwith
interest within 30 days from the date of judgment.
7. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for the claimants in these two cases that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
unsustainable in law and the Tribunal has grossly erred in
not appreciating the materials placed on record, both oral
and documentary, thereby leading to miscarriage of justice
to the claimants. It is further contended that the Tribunal
has committed an error in not awarding just and
reasonable compensation and the income of the deceased
assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The
compensation awarded under different heads is not in
accordance with the material placed on record and the
same requires to be enhanced. Therefore, he seeks to
allow the appeal and consequently enhance the
compensation.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
8. Learned counsel for the claimants relies on the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of The Regional Manager -vs- Sri Krishne Gowda and
others in M.F.A. No.216/2022 decided on 15th July2022 to
contend that for a married person, one-third of income
shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
Corporation vehemently contends the Tribunal has
committed a gross error in fastening the liability
exclusively on the driver of the bus without implicating the
driver of the autorickshaw who was also equally
responsible for occurrence and causation of the accident.
It is further contended that the Tribunal has committed a
serious error in assessing the age of the deceased as 50
years relying upon Ex.P7/post-mortem report, whereas the
deceased was aged 61 years as on date of occurrence of
accident. To substantiate the same, learned counsel has
filed an application - I.A. No.1/2023 in MFA No.2876/2022
before this Court Order XL1 Rule 27 of CPC for production
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
of documents, in which he has relied upon the Aadhar
card, which clearly depicts age of the deceased as 61
years as on the date of accident.
10. It is further contention of learned counsel for the
Corporation that the Tribunal has committed an error in
assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per
month, which is not substantiated and there is no
justification for assessing the income at Rs.12,000/- per
month for a lady aged more than 60 years. The Tribunal
has committed an error in deducting one-third of income
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
without taking into consideration the fact that 1st claimant
is none other than the husband of the deceased and 2nd
claimant is a son, who is married & settled and living
independently. The Tribunal has erroneously added 10%
of income towards future prospects without taking into
consideration the fact that where the age of deceased is
more than 60 years, claimants would not be entitled to
future prospects. The compensation awarded under all the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
heads is on the higher side and hence same requires to be
reduced. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to
modify the impugned judgment and award.
11. Learned counsel for the Corporation relies on the
judgment of this Court in the case of New India
Assurance Co., Ltd., -vs- Sri David T and another
reported in ILR 2012 Kar 2859 to contend that 50% of
income is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the claimants
and learned counsel for the Corporation, it is seen that
though the occurrence of accident, involvement of two
vehicles, death having occurred due to occurrence of the
accident are disputed, same have been proved and
established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5 are the police records, which clearly depict
registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet
against driver of the KSRTC bus and same have not been
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
challenged or controverted. Therefore, negligence is
rightly attributed against driver of the KSRTC bus.
13. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income and multiplier to be adopted, it is seen that in the
absence of proof of income, the tribunal has taken the
income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/- per month,
whereas the Legal Services Authority Chart prescribes the
notional income of Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident
of the year 2019. Under the circumstances, the income
requires to be taken as Rs.14,000/- per month rather
than Rs.12,000/-.
14. The Tribunal has deducted one-third of the
amount towards personal and living expenses, which is
seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the
Corporation by contending that 50% ought to have been
deducted. I am afraid the same cannot be acceded to for
the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and others -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
has held that for a married person, one-third of income
shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the
Corporation is negatived.
15. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased
Lakshmamma as 50 years relying upon Ex.P7 - post-
mortem report and accordingly added 10% of income as
future prospects. On appreciation of the subsequent
document - Aadhar card produced alongwith I.A.
No.1/2023, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased
was aged 61 years. Accordingly, the age of the deceased
is taken as 61 years. I am also in agreement with the
learned counsel for the Corporation that addition of 10%
of income towards future prospects in this case is
unwarranted as the deceased was aged 61 years. The
Tribunal adopted the multiplier of '13' on the basis of age
of the deceased to be 50 years, but this Court as stated
above appreciating the subsequent document produced,
has taken the age of the deceased to be 61 years and
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
hence, the multiplier would be 7. Under the circumstances,
the loss of dependency in this case would be Rs.14,000 x
12 x 7 = Rs.11,76,000/- as against Rs.13,72,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The Tribunal awarded Rs.88,000/- towards loss
of consortium; Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; and
Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation
awarded under the said heads is just and proper and the
same does not call for interference. I deem it appropriate
to retain the same.
17. In view of the above, the claimants would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,97,000/-.
However, an interim compensation of Rs.35,000/- has
been paid by the Corporation, which is admitted and same
requires to be deducted. Hence, total compensation liable
to be paid to the claimants would be Rs.12,62,000/-, as
mentioned in the table below:
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,76,000-00
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000-00
3 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500-00
4 Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500-00
Total Rs. 12,97,000-00
Less: Interim compensation Rs. 35,000-00
Rs. 12,62,000-00
18. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are disposed off.
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 29th
September 2021 passed by the Tribunal in
MVC No.1527/2019, is modified.
iii) The claimants would be entitled to reduced
compensation of Rs.12,62,000/-
(Rs.12,97,000 minus Rs.35,000) as against
Rs.14,58,800/- (Rs.14,93,800 minus
Rs.35,000) awarded by the Tribunal alongwith
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
iv) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimants as per the terms of
the tribunal by electronic transfer to the
claimants upon furnishing the required bank
details/upon proper identification.
v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
the Tribunal shall stand intact.
vi) The Registry is directed to transmit the
original records, if any to the jurisdictional
Tribunal forthwith.
II. In MFA Nos.6127/2021 and 2857/2022:
(CASE OF INJURY TO RAVIKUMARA)
19. These two appeals - MFA Nos.6127/2021 and
2857/2022 are preferred by the claimant/Ravikumara and
the Corporation respectively challenging the common
judgment and award dated 29th September 2021 passed
in MVC 1525/2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
& CJM and Member, Addl. MACT, Hassan.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
20. MFA No.6127/2021 is preferred by the claimant
on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, so also fixing 25% contributory
negligence against the claimant. Whereas, MFA
No.2857/2022 is preferred by the Corporation on the
ground that the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and erroneously
fastened liability against the Corporation and thereby
seeking to set aside the same.
21. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.13,35,000/- and fastened 25% contributory negligence
on the claimant and as such deducted 25% (Rs.3,35,750)
from the total compensation payable to the claimant and
directed the Corporation to deposit Rs.10,01,250/-
(Rs.13,35,000 minus Rs.3,35,750/-) alongwith with
interest at 6% per annum within 30 days from the date of
the judgment.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
22. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error
in not taking into consideration the material placed on
record, both oral and documentary in the proper
perspective and awarded inadequate compensation. The
income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and further 40% of income ought to have been
added towards future prospects. The Tribunal has rightly
taken the disability at 55% rather than 18% as contended
by the Corporation. The Tribunal has committed gross
error in fastening 25% contributory negligence against the
claimant, who was driving the autorickshaw, for not
possessing valid driving licence to drive the autorickshaw.
It is also contended that the compensation awarded under
different heads is not in accordance with the material on
record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and
consequently enhance the compensation.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
23. Per contra, learned counsel - Sri F.S. Dabali
representing the Corporation contends that the driver of
the autorickshaw was admittedly not possessing a valid
and effective driving licence and he was not having
knowledge/skill of driving passenger auto and despite the
same, he drove the autorickshaw and caused the accident
and hence entire negligence is to be attributed on the
driver of the autorickshaw. He further contends that the
Tribunal has committed a serious error in taking the
disability to the whole body at 55%, whereas the
doctor/PW.2 in his evidence has stated physical disability
of 41% to the left lower limb and 25% to the right lower
limb and combined disability of 55%. Therefore, the
Tribunal ought to have taken the whole body disability at
18% instead of 55%. He further contends that the
Tribunal has ignored the evidence of doctor, who has
stated that the fractures have been united. He also
contends that the Tribunal has awarded exhorbitant
compensation under all the heads and same requires to be
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
drastically reduced. On these grounds, learned counsel
seeks to modify/set aside the impugned judgment and
award.
24. Having heard learned counsels for both the
parties, it would not be necessary to once again advert
with regard to occurrence of the accident and negligence
aspect as it is already dealt in the preceding paragraphs.
25. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income, multiplier and disability, it is seen that as per
Ex.P4/wound certificate, age of the claimant is 35 years,
whereas in his evidence, he has stated his age to be 42
years as on 7.1.2021. The Tribunal has rightly taken the
age of the claimant as per his evidence. Therefore, age of
the claimant would be 40 years as on the date of the
accident i.e., 11.5.2019 and the appropriate multiplier
would be '15', which is rightfully adopted by the Tribunal
and the same does not call for interference.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
26. In the absence of proof of income, the tribunal
has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.12,000/-
per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority Chart
prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,000/- per month
for the accident of the year 2019. Under the
circumstances, the income requires to be taken as
Rs.14,000/- per month rather than Rs.12,000/-.
27. The Tribunal is not justified in taking the whole
body disability of the claimant to be 55%. On careful
perusal of evidence of the doctor, it is seen that the doctor
has stated in his evidence that the claimant suffered
physical disability of 41% to the left lower limb and 25%
to the right lower limb and combined disability of 55%.
Even as per Ex.C2/disability certificate issued by the
doctor, the claimant has sustained physical disability of
55% in relation to left lower limb and right lower limb. I
am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
Corporation that the whole body disability is required to be
taken as one-third of limbs disability. Therefore, the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
whole body disability would be one-third of 55% i.e.,
18.33% and the same is rounded off to 19%. I am not
inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the
claimant to award future prospects for the reason that the
disability is reduced to 19% by this Court.
28. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of
future income would be Rs.4,78,800/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x
15 x 19%).
29. The Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- towards pain
and agony; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities; and
Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. The
compensation awarded under the said heads is just and
proper and the same does not call for interference and I
deem it appropriate to retain the same.
30. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered
by the claimant, atleast three months is required to
recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities.
In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,000/-
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
per month, Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 3) is awarded under
this head.
31. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for
the claimant that there is no justification in fastening 25%
of contributory negligence against the claimant, who was
driving the autorickshaw for the reason that there is no
material placed before the Court by the insurance
company to show that the claimant, who was driving the
autorcikshaw has contributed to the occurrence of
accident, whereas the Tribunal has clearly given a finding
that the imposition of 25% contributory negligence is due
to the fact that the claimant was not possessing a valid
driving licence to drive the autorickshaw. I am afraid the
same cannot be sustained for the reason that there is no
FIR or charge sheet laid against the claimant, the driver of
the autorickshaw and further, there is no averment to the
effect that the claimant contributed to the occurrence of
accident except stating that he was not possessing a valid
driving licence. If that be so, the claimant could have
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
been penalized for not possessing a valid Driving Licence
under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. Unless there
is cogent material evidence to show that the claimant
contributed to the occurrence of accident, he cannot be
fastened with contributory negligence. Hence, the finding
of the Tribunal with regard to fastening 25% contributory
negligence against the claimant, is hereby set aside.
32. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,55,800/- as
mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of future income Rs.4,78,800-00
2 Towards pain and agony Rs. 70,000-00
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 42,000-00
period
5 Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000-00
Total Rs. 6,55,800-00
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
33. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The appeals are disposed off.
2) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 29th
September 2021 passed by the tribunal in MVC
No.1525/2019 is modified.
3) The finding of the Tribunal with regard to
fastening 25% contributory negligence against the
claimant, is hereby set aside.
4) The claimant would be entitled to reduced
compensation of Rs.6,55,800/- as against
Rs.13,35,000/- awarded by the tribunal alongwith
interest at 6 % per annum.
5) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimant as per the terms of the
tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant
upon furnishing the required bank details/upon
proper identification.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
6) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
7) Registry is directed to transmit the original
records, if any to the jurisdictional tribunal
forthwith.
III. In MFA Nos.6137/2021 and 2853/2022:
(CASE OF INJURY TO SIDDAIAH)
34. These two appeals - MFA Nos.6137/2021 and
2853/2022 are preferred by the claimant/Siddaiah and the
Corporation respectively challenging the common
judgment and award dated 29th September 2021 passed
in MVC 1526/2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
& CJM and Member, Addl. MACT, Hassan.
35. MFA No.6137/2021 is preferred by the claimant
on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, MFA No.2853/2022 is
preferred by the Corporation on the ground that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
perverse, arbitrary, illegal and erroneously fastened entire
liability against the Corporation and thereby seeking to set
aside the same.
36. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.5,54,900/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum and
directed the Corporation to deposit the amount alongwith
interest within 30 days from the date of judgment.
37. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error
in not taking into consideration the material placed on
record, both oral and documentary in the proper
perspective and awarded inadequate compensation. The
income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and further 40% of income ought to have been
added towards future prospects. The Tribunal rightly
taken the disability at 62% rather than 21% as contended
by the Corporation. It is also contended that the
compensation awarded under different heads is not in
accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the
compensation.
38. Per contra, learned counsel - Sri F.S. Dabali
representing the Corporation contends that the driver of
the autorickshaw was admittedly not possessing a valid
and effective driving licence and he was not having
knowledge/skill of driving passenger auto and despite the
same, he drove the autorickshaw and caused the accident
and hence entire negligence is to be attributed against
driver of the autorickshaw. He further contends that the
Tribunal has committed a serious error in taking the
disability to the whole body at 62%, whereas the
doctor/PW.2 in his evidence has stated physical disability
of 40% to the left upper limb and 40% to the right lower
limb and combined disability of 62%. Therefore, the
Tribunal ought to have taken the whole body disability at
21% instead of 62%. He also contends that the Tribunal
has awarded exhorbitant compensation under all the
heads and same requires to be drastically reduced. On
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
these grounds, learned counsel seeks to modify/set aside
the impugned judgment and award.
39. Having heard learned counsels for both the
parties, it would not be necessary to once again advert
with regard to occurrence of the accident and negligence
aspect as it is already dealt with in detail in the preceding
paragraphs.
40. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income, multiplier and disability, it is seen that as per
Ex.P7/Discharge Summary and Ex.P9/out-patient record,
age of the claimant is stated to be 70 years. Accordingly,
the Tribunal rightly taken the age of the claimant to be 70
years and adopted the multiplier of '5', which does not call
for interference.
41. In the absence of proof of income, the tribunal
has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.12,000/-
per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority Chart
prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,000/- per month
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
for the accident of the year 2019. Under the
circumstances, the income requires to be taken as
Rs.14,000/- per month rather than Rs.12,000/-.
42. The Tribunal is not justified in taking the whole
body disability of the claimant to be 62%. On careful
perusal of evidence of the doctor, it is seen that the doctor
has stated in his evidence that the claimant suffered
physical disability of 40% to the left upper limb and 40%
to the right lower limb and combined disability of 62%.
Even as per Ex.C3/disability certificate issued by the
doctor, the claimant has sustained physical disability of
62% in relation to left upper limb and right lower limb. I
am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
Corporation that the whole body disability is required to be
taken as 21% (one-third) as against 62%. Accordingly,
the whole body disability is taken as 21%. I am not
inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the
claimant to award future prospects for the reason that the
disability is reduced to 21% by this Court.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
43. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of
future income would be Rs.1,76,400/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 5
x 21%).
44. The Tribunal awarded Rs.65,000/- towards pain
and agony; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities; and
Rs.1,500/- towards medical bills. The compensation
awarded under the said heads is just and proper and the
same does not call for interference and I deem it
appropriate to retain the same.
45. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered
by the claimant, atleast three months is required to
recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities.
In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,000/-
per month, Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 3) is awarded under
this head.
46. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.3,14,900/- as
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
against Rs.5,54,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, as
mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of future income Rs.1,76,400-00
2 Towards pain and agony Rs. 65,000-00
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 42,000-00
period
5 Medical bills Rs. 1,500-00
Total Rs.3,14,900-00
47. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are disposed off.
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 29th
September 2021 passed by the tribunal in
MVC No.1526/2019, is modified.
iii) The claimant would be entitled to reduced
compensation of Rs.3,14,900/- as against
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30969
AND 3 OTHERS
Rs.5,54,900/- awarded by the tribunal
alongwith interest at 6 % per annum.
iv) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimant as per the terms of the
tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant
upon furnishing the required bank
details/upon proper identification.
v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
the tribunal shall stand intact.
vi) Registry is directed to transmit the original
records, if any to the jurisdictional tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
GSS
