Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ravi Kumar @ Ravi vs The Managing Director on 4 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
MFA No. 2939 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 3557 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2939 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3557 OF 2020(MV-I)
IN M.F.A.2939/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI K. RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
NO.99 BALLA MULABAGAL TALUK
KOLAR - 563 1321.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C, DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI B. PALAKSHAIAH, ADV.)
NANDINI MS
Location:
HIGH COURT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
OF JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC
KARNATAKA
NO.2125/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C OF XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU CCH-22 PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.3557/2020:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, SARIGE BHAVANA
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
MFA No. 2939 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 3557 of 2020
BANGLAORE - 560 027
NOW REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. PALAKHAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
K. RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGE 27 YEARS
R/A #99, BALLA MULLABAUL TQ
KOLAR - 563 131.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.23.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2125/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-22), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.12,73,522/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.2939/2021 is filed by the claimant for
enhancement of compensation whereas MFA
No.3557/2020 is filed by the KSRTC against fastening
liability and quantum of compensation under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MVC
No.2125/2018 by XX Addl. Small Causes Judge and XVIII
ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru,
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing
for respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner / claimant is that he
has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for
the injury sustained by him in the road traffic accident. It
is alleged by the claimant that on 11.03.2018 at about
9.30 p.m, he was riding his motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-07-S-4439 on Mulbagal-Nangali NH-74
road When he reached near KSRTC depot, Seegenhalli, at
that time, all of a sudden KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-07-F-1683 drove by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner with a high speed and all of a sudden he
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
took right turn towards KSRTC depot. As a result, back
portion of the said bus dashed to the petitioner's vehicle
and he fell down and sustained injury. Hence, he filed a
claim petition claiming compensation.
4. In response to notice, the respondent - KSRTC
appeared through its counsel by denying the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, the injury
sustained by the claimant, the age, occupation and income
of the claimant and accordingly prays for dismissal of the
claim petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has
framed following issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that,
on 11.03.2018 at about 9.30 p.m, while he
was proceeding in a two wheeler bearing
registration No.KA-07-S-4439, near KSRTC
Depot, Segenahalli, NH-75 Highway Road,
Kolar, suddenly the driver of KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-07-F-1683, driven
the same in a high speed, rash and negligent
manner dashed against him and caused
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
accident, resulting which he sustained grievous
injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or decree?"
6. The claimant in order to prove his case
examined himself as PW.1 and also examined two more
witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 13 documents
as Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand, respondent - driver of
the KSRTC bus examined himself as RW1 and got marked
one document as Ex.R.1
7. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal
allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.12,73,522/- together with interest 6% per annum,
which is under challenge by both the side.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting lesser
compensation as the petitioner is still under treatment
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
very recently. He submits that the petitioner has further
taken treatment in the hospital. Three times he has
admitted in the hospital and has spent more than 2.50
lakhs towards medical expenses. Therefore, he has filed
I.A. under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of CPC along
with documents and prays to allow I.A, as well as
enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent /
KSRTC also contented that the Tribunal already granted
Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses apart from
medical expenses of Rs.2,57,522/- and medical bills does
not accompanied with the medical prescriptions issued by
the doctor and therefore, it is not possible to consider
these documents for the purpose of calculating medical
expenses and also contended that the Tribunal has
committed an error in holding there is no negligence on
part of the rider of the motorcycle, which is not correct. As
per Ex.P3 - IMV report there is damage to the front side of
the bus and front side of the motorcycle whereas the
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
claimant's case was the damage occurred on the backside
of the bus but not front side of the bus which has not
properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Hence, prays for
allowing the appeal by setting aside the liability.
10. Having heard the arguments it reveals that
there is no dispute that the accident has occurred on
11.03.2018 at about 9.30 p.m, As per pleadings, claimant
was behind the bus when the bus was running in high
speed and all of a sudden took right turn due to which
motorcycle dashed to the bus. Ex.P2 - mahazar reveals
that there is scratch found on the backside of the bus
whereas Ex.P3 - IMV report reveals that front side bottom
body of the bus was scratched. This aspect was not
properly considered by the Tribunal and there is necessity
to give fresh finding on issue No.1. The respondent has
not examined IMV inspector who conducted the inspection
on vehicles and also no independent witness was
examined. The petitioner was admitted to hospital thrice
from 25.02.2021 to 06.03.2021 and once again admitted
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
on the same date i.e. on 06.03.2021 to 04.06.2021.
Thereafter, again admitted to hospital on 19.10.2022 to
28.10.2022. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to
produce documents such as medical records along with
prescriptions issued by the doctor before the Tribunal
which is subject to verification and cross-examination of
other side. Medical bills were not accompanied with the
prescriptions. The petitioner is still under treatment.
Therefore, the petitioner requires time to obtain disability
certificate and in this regard he has also filed I.A. under
Order 41 Rule 27 R/w 151 of CPC along with additional
documents. Such being the case, I am of the view that the
matter is required to be considered afresh in accordance
with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
23.12.2019 in MVC No.2125/2018 passed by XX Addl.
Small Causes Judge and XVIII ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru is
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
set aside as regards issue No.1 as well as claim of
compensation, medical expenses and disability. The
matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration,
in accordance with law.
iii) Both the parties are given liberty to adduce
evidence, both oral and documentary.
iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter
within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
v) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
05.08.2024 without awaiting any further notice.
vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
vii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along
with copy of this judgment and also I.A.No.1 filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of CPC along with
documents to the Tribunal, forthwith.
viii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25365
ix) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
