Karnataka High Court
Sri Channaraju @ Papanna vs The Managing Director on 30 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
MFA No. 2434 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2434 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHANNARAJU @ PAPANNA
S/O KUNNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.89
KAILANCHA, AVERAHALLI,
BENGALURU
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C DEPOT,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE,
HEMALATHA A
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560027
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.S.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06/09/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.5029/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
MFA No. 2434 of 2019
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.5029/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 22.04.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., when
the claimant was proceeding by walk on Bengaluru -
Mysore road near Ijoor Circle, KSRTC bus stop, at that
time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-5119
being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent
significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance
charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded
that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared
through counsel and filed written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,
examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Shrihari was examined
as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondent, one witness was
examined as RW-1 and no documents were got marked.
The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter
alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The
Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly
income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month, despite
claiming that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, by
working as a mason.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as
PW-2. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has
higher mental function deficits and assessed the whole
body disability at 54%. But the Tribunal erred in taking
the whole body disability at 5%.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
a period of 7 days. Even after discharge from the hospital,
he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He
has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the
same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other incidental expenses are on the lower side.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Corporation raised the following counter-contentions:
a) Firstly, the assertion of the claimant that he was
earning Rs.30,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated
due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of
proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of
the claimant notionally.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has
rightly assessed the whole body disability at 5%.
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
c) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 7 days.
Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and
considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of
'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other
incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does
not warrant interference.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the
original records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 22.04.2017
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.30,000/-
per month. But he has not produced any documents to
substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof
of income, notional income has to be assessed. According
to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year
2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
left ear bleed, nasal bleed GLS was E2, M5, V3 with
bilaterally equally reacting pupils. The doctor in his
evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered head
injury, due to that he has lost memory and he has higher
mental function deficits and physical disability to whole
body was assessed at 54%. The claimant himself was
examined as PW1. He has entered the witness box and he
gave correct answers without any difficulty and without
hesitation to the questions put by the insurance company
advocate. Considering the evidence of PW2 and the
medical records produced by the claimant, I am of the
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
opinion that the whole body disability has to be assessed
at 25%. The claimant was aged about 36 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age
group is '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- (Rs.11,000*12*15*25%)
on account of 'loss of future income'.
12. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant
must have been under rest and treatment for a period of
three months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months) under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
13. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for
more than 7 days in the hospital and subsequently
received further treatment. Due to the accident, the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone
surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment
as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor,
I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'loss of
amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this
Compensation under
Tribunal Court
different Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 30,000 40,000
Medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during laid 8,000 33,000
up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000
Loss of future income 72,000 4,95,000
Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Total 1,60,000 6,38,000
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
16. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.6,38,000/- as against Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
