Karnataka High Court

Sri Khateeb Zakriya vs Ksrtc on 16 January, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:1906
                                                     MFA No. 5283 of 2020




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                            BEFORE

                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5283 OF 2020

              BETWEEN:

              SRI KHATEEB ZAKRIYA
              S/O ABUL KHADER
              AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
              R/AT MKK ROAD,
              SHIMOGGA DODDAPETE
              SHIMOGGA DISTRICT 577202
                                                              ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI JAGADEESH H.T, ADV.)
              AND:

              KSRTC
              THE MANAGIGNE DIRECTOR
              KSRTC
              BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE
              DUBBLE ROAD,
              SHANTHI NAGARA
              BENGALURU 560001
Digitally                                                   ...RESPONDENT
signed by B
LAVANYA       (BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADV.)
Location:
HIGH               THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
COURT OF      JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC
KARNATAKA     NO.235/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
              MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-18,
              PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
              SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

                  THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
              COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:1906
                                                MFA No. 5283 of 2020




                           JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant being dissatisfied

with the meager compensation awarded by the III Addl. Small

Causes Judge (SCCH-18), Bengaluru, in M.V.C.No.235/2019

dated 22.06.2020.

Brief facts of the case:

2. On 11.12.2018 at about 7.30 a.m., the claimant was

traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32-F-2050,

when the bus reached near Chikka Mudabal village, Shahapur-

Jewargi Taluk, Kalaburagi District, the driver of the bus drove

the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and lost

control of the bus and took left turn and applied sudden brakes,

due to which, the bus turned turtle on the left side of the road.

Due to the accident, the claimant who was an inmate in the bus

sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was

immediately shifted to the Government Hospital at Kalaburagi

where he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted

to United Hospital, where he was admitted as an inpatient. It is

the version of the claimant that he was hale and healthy prior

to the occurrence of the accident doing mason work, aged 46

NC: 2024:KHC:1906

years and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. In view of the

accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus,

claimant suffered injuries and permanent disability to his body

due to which he is crippled physically as well as financially.

Hence, he had filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

3. The respondent-Corporation on appearance, filed

statement of objections, denied the contentions including age,

avocation, income and the negligence attributed against the

driver of the bus and sought to dismiss the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed

relevant issues. In order to substantiate and prove his case, the

claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-12. He also examined the doctor as PW-2 and got

marked Exs.P-13 & 14 through the doctor. Whereas, the

respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked

Exs.R-1 to R-4.

5. On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and

documentary, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

Rs.10,19,096/- along with interest at 8% per annum to be paid

NC: 2024:KHC:1906

by the Corporation. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the

meager compensation, is before this Court in this appeal.

6. It is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for

the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal has not taken into

consideration the material on record both oral and documentary

while awarding compensation under several heads stipulated in

the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has not

assessed proper income of the claimant for awarding

compensation and awarded less compensation under the head

pain and suffering, loss of income during laidup period, food,

nourishment and attendant charges, so also future medical

expenses. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of

compensation.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel representing the Corporation

contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in

awarding just and reasonable compensation. In view of there

being no material evidence with regard to proof of income, the

Tribunal has taken the notional income and awarded reasonable

compensation which does not call for interference. Learned

Counsel also contends that the Tribunal has assessed 13%

NC: 2024:KHC:1906

disability to the whole body without there being any material on

record. Hence, the appeal requires to be dismissed as there is

no interference called for with the hands of this Court.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and

the respondent-Corporation.

9. It is not in dispute that on 11.12.2018, when the claimant

was traveling as an inmate in KSRTC bus, due to the negligence

of the driver of the bus which turned turtle, the claimant

suffered grievous injuries. These aspects have been proved and

established by production of Exs.P-1 to P-5 being the police

records and Exs.P-6 to P-14 being the medical records from the

hospital. The negligence is rightly attributed against the driver

of the bus which is not questioned or challenged by the driver

of the bus. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in fastening the

liability against the driver of the bus and consequently against

the Corporation.

10. Now coming to the age, avocation and income of the

claimant, as on the date of occurrence of the accident the age

is taken as 46 years which is not disputed. Appropriate

multiplier for the said age is '13' which is rightly taken by the

NC: 2024:KHC:1906

Tribunal, and the same does not call for interference. The

Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.8,500/-

per month in view of no documents being produced in proof of

income. However, I am in agreement with the

appellant/claimant that when there is no proof of income, the

Tribunal and this Court will have to make an assessment with

regard to the notional income prescribed by the Legal Services

Authority Chart for the year 2018 which stipulates Rs.12,500/-

per month as income and the same is required to be adopted in

the present case.

11. The doctor has been examined as PW-2 who has assessed

the disability to an extent of 13% to the whole body. The same

is adopted by the Tribunal which does not call for interference.

In view of the assessment made by the doctor and the Tribunal

to the extent of 13% disability, the loss of future earnings due

to disability would be 12,500 x 12 x 13 x 13% = Rs.2,53,500/-

as against Rs.1,72,380/- awarded by the Tribunal.

12. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.40,000/-. This Court deems appropriate to award additional

Rs.10,000/- under this head. Towards loss of amenities, the

NC: 2024:KHC:1906

Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. This Court deems

appropriate to award additional Rs.25,000/- under this head.

Towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. I deem it appropriate to

award additional Rs.10,000/- under this head as the claimant

was inpatient for 19 days. Towards medical expenses, the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,31,216/- and the same does not call

for interference as it is awarded on the actual bills placed by

the claimant. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,500/-. In view of this Court

enhancing the income of the claimant to Rs.12,500/- per

month, atleast four months time is taken by the claimant for

recovery and get back to his normal day today activities, and

therefore, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head. Towards

future medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.20,000/-. Whereas the doctor has deposed that Rs.60,000/-

is required. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award

Rs.30,000/- under this head as against Rs.20,000/-.

Sl.

                 Compensation Heads                     Amount
No.
 1       Pain and suffering                              Rs.50,000-00
 2       Loss of amenities                               Rs.45,000-00

                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:1906





 3     Nourishment,      conveyance and                   Rs.30,000-00
       attendant charges
 4     Medical expenses                              Rs.7,31,216-00
 5     Loss of future income                         Rs.2,53,500-00
 6     Loss of income during laid up                   Rs.50,000-00
       period
 7     Future medical expenses                        Rs.30,000-00
                       Total                       Rs.11,89,716-00

13. In view of the above discussion, the claimant would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,89,716/- as against

Rs.10,29,096/- as per the table mentioned above.

14. Accordingly, the following: