Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Rajashekar Gowda R B on 3 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
MFA No. 5799 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5799 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA R.B.
S/O BATHEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT REDDEMPALLI VILLAGE,
KASHETTIPALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K KOLAR DISTRICT.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED.01.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.7873/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.11,07.869/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT
P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.40,000/-)
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
MFA No. 5799 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1)
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as
MV Act) challenging the judgment and award dated 01.04.2022
passed in MVC No.7873/2019 passed by the VIII ADDL. Small
Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru,
(for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for having
awarded the compensation to the respondent.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
3. The appellant was respondent/Insurance company
and respondent was the petitioner/claimant before the Trial
Court. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained
for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed claim
petition for under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short
'M.V. Act') for claiming compensation for the injury sustained
and road traffic accident dated 27.8.2019. It is alleged by him
that on the said date at 12.30 p.m., when he was riding motor
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
cycle Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-V-2369 at
about 12.30 p.m., near Punganur cross, Srinivasapura
Madanapalli road, Srinivasapur talk, Kolar district, at that time,
one KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07-F-1683 came from
opposite direction i.e., from Madanapalli side, driven by the
driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost the
control over the bus, went on a wrong side of the road and
dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to which, he has
sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital
and sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The petitioner
has spent lot of amount towards hospitalization. Hence, filed
claim petition for having awarded the said amount to the
respondent as compensation
5. On receipt of the summons, the respondent/KSRTC
appeared and filed a statement of objection by denying the rash
and negligent driving, also denied age, occupation, injury and
income of the petitioner and contended that there is no
disability and there is no avocation. Also denied by taking
specific contention that the petitioner was driving the
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
motorcycle in a high speed, came from opposite direction by
overtaking a private vehicle and dashed against the bus which
was stationary on its right side corner of the bus stand.
Further contended, that the petitioner himself sustained the
injury and therefore there is no negligence, on the part of the
driver of the KSRTC. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the
following issues for consideration:
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, on
27.08.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. when the
Petitioner was going towards his village
Reddempalli from Srinivasapura Town by
riding a Honda Activa Scooter bearing
Reg.No.KA-50-V-2369, slowly and cautiously
on correct side of the road, when he reached
near Punganur Cross, on Srinivasapura-
Madanapalli Road of Kolar Distict, one KSRTC
Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-07-F-1683 came
from opposite direction i.e., from Madanapalli
side, driving by its driver at high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, lost control over
the vehicle went wrong side of the road and
dashed to Petitioners Motor Cycle, due to
which, the Petitioner fell down and sustained
grievous head injuries, as mentioned in claim
petition?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation petition? as prayed in the
petition?
3. What order or award ?
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
7. To prove the case, the petitioner himself was examined
as P.W.1. and also examined another witness, the Doctor as
PW2. On behalf o the respondent the driver was examined as
RW1 and no documents were produced. After hearing the
arguments, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative and
issue No.2 in the partly affirmative. Accordingly, granted
compensation of Rs.11,07,869/-, which is as under and fixed
the liability on the respondent KSRTC.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
in Rs.
1. Loss of future income 7,99,680-00
2. Pain and Suffering 50,000-00
3. Conveyance, Nourishment and 25,000-00
Attendant Charges
4. Medical Expenses 1,39,922-00
5. Loss of amenities in life 50,000-00
6. Loss of income during laid up 3,267-00
period
7. Future medical expenses 40,000-00
Total 11,07,869-00
8. Being aggrieved with the fixing of the liability, as well
as quantum of compensation, the KSRTC is before this court.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent (appellant herein)
has seriously contended that the tribunal committed error in
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
disbelieving the evidence of the respondent as the vehicle was
standing on the left side of the road in a bus stop and the
passengers were alighting and boarding, where the petitioner
himself drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and by
overtaking another private vehicle, dashed to the stationary bus
and sustained injury. Therefore, the question of fixing liability
on the KSRTC does not arise. Also contended that the tribunal
committed error in taking 28% of disability for the whole body
and other heads and also awarded exorbitantly. Hence, prayed
for reducing the same.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner
(respondent herein) supported the judgment and award passed
by the tribunal and contended that the amount of calculation
made by the tribunal is correct. Hence, prayed for dismissing
this appeal.
11. Having heard the arguments, perused the records,
the point that arises for my consideration are,
Whether tribunal committed error in fixing the
liability on KSRTC and also awarding
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
compensation exorbitantly, which requires
reduction ?
12. On perusal of the record and the pleading of the
petitioner that on the said date of accident i.e, on 27.08.2019
at 12.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding in
motorcycles Active Honda, the KSRTC bus came from opposite
direction on the wrong side and dashed to the petitioner. Due
to which, he sustained injury. In support of the contention, the
petitioner produced FIR at Ex.P1, Complaint at Ex.P.2, Spot
Mahazar at Ex.P.3. The tribunal after analyzing the evidence on
record and cross examination made by respondent and also
evidence made by respondent as RW1, driver of the KSRTC
Vehicle, came to the conclusion this accident occurred due to
negligent driving of KSRTC bus driver. Though the respondent
taken contention that the bus was stationary and had stopped
at the bus stop and he has given oral evidence, but the police
have filed charge sheet, after the investigation against him,
which was not challenged. That apart, the respondent not
examined the conductor or any passenger to show the accident
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
occurred when the bus was in station on the right side.
Therefore, considering the same, the tribunal answered issue
No.1 in Affirmative in favour of the claimant, holding that this
accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the KSRTC.
Therefore, I am of the view, there is nothing to interfere in this
case, except for oral Testimony of RW1, nothing has been
produced on record and lead any additional evidence in the
tribunal. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in favour of the
claimant against the insurer/KSRTC.
13. As regards to compensation, the petitioner suffered
fractured injuries on both the legs, patella and undergone
surgery where implants also still in situ. The medical bills of
Rs.1,39,922/- spent and admitted in hospital for more than
seven days. Such being the case, awarding Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings cannot be said it is exaggerated.
Food, nourishment and attendant charges of Rs.25,000/- is
very meagre. The medical expenses awarded is based upon the
documents at Rs.1,39,922/-. Loss of amenities awarded was
Rs.50,000/-. The future medical expenses awarded was
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
Rs.40,000/-. However, the tribunal not awarded any loss of
laid-up period, except awarding Rs.3,267/- which is not correct.
However, claimants have not filed any appeal regarding
enhancement of compensation. Considering the quantum of
compensation, the injury sustained by the petitioner in both
legs where one leg sustained 30% of the disability and another
leg is 54% percent of disability, totally 84% of disability to both
legs. Tribunal considered 1/3rd of the same to the whole body,
which is 28%. Such being the case, the tribunal not committed
error calculating 28% of disability to whole body. Though
learned counsel contended that there is no physical functional
disability etc., but the petitioner sustained fracture of both the
legs and it is said to be due to the accident. Such being the
case, it is difficult for him to sit, squat, stand or run for long
time and the disability definitely will affect the functional
disability of the claimants. Hence, the award cannot be held
insufficient. Such being the case, the appeal filed by the
respondent/appellant is devoid of merits.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25209
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the
tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
