Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director, Nekrtc vs Santosh on 26 June, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274
                                                          MFA No. 201576 of 2021




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


                       MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201576 OF 2021 (MV-I)
                      BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                      NEKRTC, OPP. KBN HOSPITAL,
                      MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI,
                      THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY,
                      ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC,
                      CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE SADANA,
                      KALABURAGI.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA            SANTOSH S/O REKHU RATHOD,
DATTATRAYA UDAGI      AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NILL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              PREVIOUSLY DRIVER,
KARNATAKA             R/O. KORALLI TANDA,
                      TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI,
                      NOW AT FILTERBED TANDA-585 105.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
                      ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED
                      TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2021
                      PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
                      ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI IN MVC
                      NO.61/2019.
                                -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274
                                        MFA No. 201576 of 2021




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation

challenging judgment and award passed by the principal

Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), in MVC No.61/2019

dated 12.01.2021 eking in question the quantum of

compensation as well as contributory negligence of the

claimant/respondent in causing the accident.

Though this appeal is slated for admission, with the

consent of both the side, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2018

petitioner while going on his motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KA-32/ET-0337 met with an accident on

Kalaburagi-Aland main road, due to rash and negligent

driving of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-32/F-1609 by its

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

driver. As a result of which, the claimant had sustained

fracture of proximal right tibia and injuries all over the

body. He had taken treatment in Kamareddy hospital and

spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

4. It is the further case of the claimant that he

was driver by profession and earning Rs.20,000/- per

month as wages and also was getting Rs.100/- batta per

day. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has been

suffering from permanent disability, which is affecting his

earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award

compensation.

5. Respondent/Corporation has denied contents of

the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition. It has further stated that accident had taken

place due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its

rider i.e. claimant and he has been falsely claiming the

compensation from the Corporation. The amount of

compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

6. From the rival contentions of both the parties,

the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its

determination.

7. The claimant to prove his case examined PWs.1

and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 14 and closed his

evidence. Respondent has examined RW.1 and not

marked any document.

8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating

the evidence available on record, the Tribunal by its

impugned judgment, awarded compensation of

Rs.5,82,000/-.

9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for both

side.

10. The learned counsel for the

appellant/Corporation submits that the Tribunal has not at

all considered the contributory negligence of the claimant,

he was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

and due to his negligence, accident had taken place. Even

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

if the Tribunal had considered the prosecution papers, it

could have held that petitioner was equally responsible for

the accident. Hence, the Tribunal erred in holding that

driver of the bus alone had caused the accident and

prayed to interface the same.

11. The further submission of the learned counsel

for the appellant is that disability assessed by the Tribunal

is on the higher side. There was no shortening of leg as

per the discharge card. However, the Doctor in his

evidence has stated that there was shortening of leg.

Therefore, contents of both documents are not consistent.

The disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher

side and amount of compensation awarded is also on

higher side. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the

respondent/claimant submits that there are no materials

on record to show that the claimant was negligent in riding

his vehicle. The driver of the bus was charge sheeted

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

after thorough investigation. Hence, question of

contribution of the petitioner does not arise.

13. He would further submit that the Tribunal after

appreciating the evidence, awarded just and proper

amount of compensation and even in some heads amount

of compensation awarded is not just and reasonable.

However, the claimant has not filed any appeal against the

impugned judgment. The impugned judgment does not

call for interference. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

14. It is not in dispute that the Investigating Officer

after thorough investigation charge sheeted the driver of

the bus for the accident in question. There are no records

to show that the petitioner had also contributed for

accident in question. RW.1 is the driver of the offending

vehicle i.e. bus. Hence, quite naturally he would say that

accident had caused by the negligence of the rider of the

motorcycle. The respondent-Corporation has not examined

inmates of the bus to show that the rider of the

motorcycle was negligent in riding his vehicle or for

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

contributed for accident in question. The Tribunal

considering the evidence of PW.1 and prosecution papers,

hold that accident had taken place due to negligence of

driver of bus. Hence, interference in the said findings is

unwarranted.

15. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence has assessed permanent disability

as 13% to the whole body. The claimant had sustained

fracture of proximal tibia and right feet. Considering the

evidence of PW.2 and disability certificate, the disability

was assessed by the Tribunal. Merely there is no reference

regarding shortening of leg in discharge summary, cannot

be a ground to suspect the disability certificate given by

the PW.2. He was subjected to cross-examination by the

Corporation and nothing was brought out to discard his

evidence. Moreover, in the discharge summary the status

of patient will be mentioned as on the date of discharge

from the hospital. Disability would be assessed after

completion of treatment. Therefore, non-mentioning of

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4274

disability or shortening of leg in the discharge summary

does not affect in any way the evidence of PW.2 and

disability certificate given by him.

16. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence has

awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call

for any interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of

merit.

17. For the aforesaid discussion, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-

               Kalaburagi,    in     MVC   No.61/2019     dated

               12.01.2021 is confirmed.


     (iii)     The amount in deposit, if any, by the