Karnataka High Court
Rajshekarswam S/O Basavrajswamy vs The Divisional Controller on 21 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
MFA No. 25558 of 2012
C/W MFA.CROB No. 956 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25558 OF 2012 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 956 OF 2013
IN MFA NO. 25558/2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE
SARIGE SADANA, GULBARGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAJSHEKARSWAM S/O. BASAVRAJSWAMY
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRI AND MECHANIC
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB
DESHNUR R/O: GANGAVATHI, NOW
Date:
DESHNUR 2024.02.23
16:39:38
R/O: INDRAKEELANAGARKOPPAL,
+0530
TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21/08/2012
PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT AND
ADDITIONAL MACT KOPPAL IN MVC NO. 230/2007 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
MFA No. 25558 of 2012
C/W MFA.CROB No. 956 of 2013
IN MFA CROB. NO. 956/2013
BETWEEN:
RAJSHEKARSWAM S/O. BASAVRAJSWAMY
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC,
R/O: GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT INDRAKALA NAGAR, KOPPAL,
TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C MAGANUR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION,
KOPPAL THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE
SARIGE SADANA, GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 21/08/2012, PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK
COURT AND ADDITIONAL MACT KOPPAL, IN MVC NO. 230/2007
BY AWARDING JUST COMPENSATION AND DISMISS MFA NO.
25558/2012, BY ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEAL AND MFA CROSS-OBJECTION, COMING
ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
MFA No. 25558 of 2012
C/W MFA.CROB No. 956 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, leanred
counsel for the appellant and Sri.Deepak C. Maganur,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. NEKRTC and claimant have filed this appeal and
cross objection challenging the validity of the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.230/2007 dated 21.08.2012
on the file of Additional MACT, Koppal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimant being injured in a road traffic accident being
an inmate of the bus bearing No.KA.37/F.178 met with an
accident involving a tractor bearing No.KA.37/T-4214 and
trailer bearing No.KA.37/T-4215
4. Claimant sustained injuries on the right hand
and right thigh. He was shifted to the hospital and he was
treated there for the injuries. Doctor has estimated his
disability on account of the accidental injury at 45%.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
Admittedly, doctor examined before the Court is not a
treated doctor.
5. Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petition
in a sum of Rs.1,92,933/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till its realization.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, NEKRTC is in appeal contending that the
contributory negligence should have been attributed to the
tractor and trailer unit and therefore, fastening the liability
entirely on the NEKRTC is incorrect.
7. However, Sri.Deepak C. Maganur, learned
counsel for the respondent contended that charge sheet
came to be filed against the driver of NEKRTC bus and
therefore, there cannot be any shifting of the liability or
attribution of contributory negligence to the driver of the
tractor and sought for enhanced compensation on the
ground that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the
monthly income and the disability factor.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
8. He also pointed out that the amount of award of
compensation on the other heads is on the lower side and
sought for enhanced compensation.
9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of material on record, it is
crystal clear that the claimant has successfully established
that he sustained accidental injuries being the inmate of
the bus as referred to supra which met with an accident
involving tractor and trailer unit as referred to supra.
11. Admittedly, charge sheet came to be filed
against the driver of bus and therefore argument on behalf
of NEKRTC that there must be some amount of
contributory negligence attributable to the driver of
tractor-trailer cannot be countenanced in law.
12. Further, conductor of the bus is not examined
nor any of the eyewitnesses have been examined to
establish that it is because of the negligent driving of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
tractor also, the accident has occurred and driver has tried
his level best to avoid the accident.
13. Testimony of RW.1 who is the driver of
offending bus is nothing but self-serving testimony and
therefore appeal of NEKRTC challenging liability cannot be
countenanced in law.
14. This would take this Court to the next question
as to the adequacy of quantum of compensation.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,92,933/- as quantum of compensation.
16. Sri.Shivakumar S Badawadagi, learned counsel
for the KSRTC contended that on the head of loss of
income, award in a sum of Rs.1,53,600/- is on higher side.
So also, on the head of attendant charges, award in a sum
of Rs.20,000/-.
17. Per contra, Sri.Deepak C Maganur, learned
counsel for the claimant contended that on the head of
loss of amenities, no amount is awarded. Likewise, on the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4290
head of nourishment, no amount is awarded. So also, on
the head of pain and suffering, no amount is awarded.
18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and
also disability factor being assessed by the doctor who is
not a treated doctor, maintaining the quantum of
compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case
would meet the ends of justice.
19. Accordingly, no case is made out either for
enhancement of compensation or for reduction of
compensation.
20. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by NEKRTC and Cross-objection
filed by the claimant are hereby dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
