Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Master Nagaraj on 6 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
MFA No. 4360 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4360 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MASTER NAGARAJ
S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI RESPONDENT NO.1 IS MINOR
S
Location: HIGH
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
COURT OF SMT. DYAMAMMA.
KARNATAKA
R/AT SHAMSHI VILLAGE,
KUNDAGOD TALUK,
DHARWAD DIST - 581 113.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. RAGHU, COURT GUARDIAN;
VIDE ORDER DATED:13.10.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
MFA No. 4360 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:8.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.165/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MEMBER, ADDL.MACT, HARIHARA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,51,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION OR
DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is challenging the judgment and
award dated 08.04.2014 passed in MVC No.165/2011 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member Addl. MACT,
Harihar1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that the respondent2 who is a minor
filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant'
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
31.05.2010 It is the case of the claimant that when he was
walking on the road on the left side of the road, a bus owned
by the appellant-Corporation came and hit the claimant
causing the accident in question, wherein he sustained
grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the same, the
claimant filed a claim petition arraying of the bus driver and
the Corporation3 as respondents. Before the Tribunal, the
KSRTC entered appearance and contested the claim
proceedings. The mother of the claimant was examined as
PW-1. The doctor was examined as PW-2 and another
witness was examined as PW-3. Exs.P1 to P.24 were
marked. The driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW-
1. No documents were marked by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC assailing
the judgment of the Tribunal contends that the findings of
the Tribunal regarding negligence is erroneous and that the
claimant himself was negligent in causing the accident. It is
Hereinafter referred to as the 'KSRTC'
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
further alleged that the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent justifies the award passed by the Tribunal and
seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The submissions of both the learned counsel have
been considered and the materials have been perused
including the records of the Tribunal. The questions that
arise for my consideration are :
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal on
negligence is erroneous and liable to be
interfered with?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive?
Re. question No.(i)
7. The Tribunal, considering the aspect of
negligence, has noticed the evidence adduced by the
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
claimant as well as RW-1 who is the driver of KSRTC bus.
Further, the records produced by the claimant have been
noticed by the Tribunal. It is forthcoming that the charge
sheet has been filed against the driver. The claimant also
examined PW-3 who was the eye-witness to the accident.
Having regard to the same, the findings of the Tribunal after
appreciating all the oral and documentary evidence on record
and the same is just and proper. No ground is made out by
the appellant to interfere with the said finding. Hence,
question No.(i) answered in the 'Negative'.
Re. question No.(ii)
8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal has noticed that the claimant was aged 8 years at
the time of the accident and studying in 1st standard. The
doctor who was examined as PW2 has deposed that the
claimant has sustained disability to the extent of 30% to the
limb. The Tribunal appreciating the testimony of PW2 has
recorded a finding that there is a disability of 12% to the
whole body.
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
9. It is forthcoming that on a clinical examination,
PW2 - doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered
permanent disability of 30%. However, in the cross-
examination, the doctor has deposed that there is a
possibility of union of the fractured bones because of the
tender age of the petitioner. Further, the doctor has
admitted that the permanent disability is in respect of the
right lower limb. Having regard to the same, the doctor
having deposed that the disability of 30% is to the right
lower limb, the whole body is required to be assessed at
10%.
10. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,4 the compensation towards
disability, pain suffering, discomfort, loss of amenities in life
is required to be re-assessed at `1,00,000/- as against
`3,00,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. The compensation
awarded under the other heads are just and proper.
2013 ACJ 2445
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
11. Accordingly, the total compensation under various
heads is re-assessed as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount Amount
awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal (`
`) this Court (`
`)
1. Disability, pain and 3,00,000-00 1,00,000-00
suffering,
discomfort, loss of
amenities
2. Medical expenses 25,931-00 25,931-00
3. Medical attendant 15,000-00 15,000-00
charges and
Transportation
4. Loss of income 10,000-00 10,000-00
during laid up
period to parents
Total `3,51,000-00 `1,51,000-00
12. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 08.04.2014
passed in MVC No.165/2011 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and Member Addl. MACT,
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
Harihar, is modified to the extent stated herein.
In all other respects, the judgment and award of
the Tribunal remain unaltered;
iii) The appellant/KSRTC shall be liable to pay the
total compensation of `1,51,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization.
iv) The amount deposited by the appellant shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in
terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.
v) In the event the appellant has deposited any
excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the
Appellant after transmitting to the Tribunal the
compensation amount together with accrued
interest.
vi) In the event, there is any shortfall in the amount
deposited by the appellant, the Appellant shall
deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal,
NC: 2024:KHC:5067
within six weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of this judgment.
vi) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
vii) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SNC
CT:SNN
