Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Pallappa on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1613 OF 2020(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISON,
TUMKUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKAR GOUD G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PALLAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O CHINNENAHALLI,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
Location: High
Court of Karnataka SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12TH MARCH, 2019 PASSED IN
M.V.C. NO.412 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,90,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION ON
THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,40,200/- SINCE THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED UNDER THE HEAD OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
DOES NOT CARRY INTEREST.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMEN T
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation, challenging the judgment
and award dated 12th March, 2019 passed in M.V.C.No.412
of 2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Madhugiri (for short, hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) on
the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
exorbitant and same is arbitrary.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 26th January, 2016, the claimant along with two
other persons were traveling in Maruthi Swift Car bearing
registration No.KA-19-MB-7646 from Bengaluru to
Chinnenahalli, Madhugiri Taluk. During which time, a bus
belongs to KSRTC bearing registration No.KA-06-F-864
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came
from the opposite direction, dashed against the said car.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
Due to occurrence of the accident, the claimant herein
sustained fracture of right femur. Thereafter, he was shifted
to Government Hospital, Madhugiri and after providing first
aid, he was shifted to Hemavathi Hospital, Tumakuru,
wherein, he has undergone surgery for fixing of plate and
screw. In this connection, the claimant spent Rs.5,00,000/-
medical and other incident charges. Hence, he filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
3.2. On service of notice, respondent-Corporation
appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim petition
and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.3. On the basis of material placed on record by the
claimant, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.3,90,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation and directed the
respondent-Corporation to pay the compensation within a
period of thirty days. The respondent-Corporation has filed
this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal on the ground of arbitrariness in the judgment
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
and awarding exorbitant compensation without considering
the material on record.
4. Heard Sri. Shankar Goud G., learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Sri. K.
Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent-
Claimant.
5. Perused the impugned judgment and award. The
short point to be considered in this appeal is with regard to
respondent-Corporation has made out a case to set-aside the
judgment or reduction of compensation on the grounds
urged in the appeal.
6. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle
and injuries sustained by the claimant have been
established by production of Exhibits P1 to P10, which are
the police and medical records depicts financial expenditure
incurred on the treatment taken by the claimant due to
injuries sustained in the accident
7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income
and disability of the claimant, the Tribunal on the basis of
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
documents produced by the claimant and looking into the
RTC records, so also the claimant being a Grade-I
Contractor, has assessed income of the claimant as
Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income since no proof has
been provided to prove the income of the claimant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Corporation contends that the income taken by the Tribunal
is higher side and same is to be reduced to Rs.9,500/- per
month. However, I do not find any reason to reduce the
notional income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.9,500/- as sought for
by the learned counsel appearing respondent-Corporation
considering the claimant to be a Grade-I Contractor. It is
not necessary in all cases to reduce or take the
compensation through the notional income chart. The
Tribunal and this Court is having discretion to analyse the
income on the basis of the documents produced before the
Court and the assertion made by the claimants before the
Court. Hence, income of the claimant is taken as
Rs.10,000/- per month.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
9. The Doctor has been examined as CW-1, who was
opined disability of 45% to a limb and 15% to whole body. I
do not find any reason to interfere with the same as the
disability is taken at one-third as per the Government
Gazette Notification and assessment was made at 15% by
the Doctor, which has been accepted by the Tribunal.
Therefore, even on this ground, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal. Coming to the next aspect of applying the
multiplier, the age of the claimant is seventy three years as
on the date of occurrence of the accident and the multiplier
ought to have been adopted at '5' rather than '8'. Hence,
same is required to be reduced to '5' instead of '8'.
10. Under these circumstances, compensation towards
loss of income due to permanent disability would be
Rs.90,000/- (Rs.10,000 X 12 X 5 X 15%) as against
1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.60,000/- and same is retained.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
12. In respect of medical expenses, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.58,195/- on the basis of actual bills produced by
the claimant, which is also retained.
13. Towards conveyance, nursing care, nourishment
and other incidental expenses, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.3,000/- and same is retained.
14. Insofar as loss of income during laid-up period is
concerned, the Tribunal considering the four months as laid-
up period, has awarded Rs.40,000/-, which is retained.
15. Towards future medical expenses, the Doctor has
opined Rs.2,50,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.50,000/-. Under this head, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the same. Hence, same is retained.
16. Towards inconvenience, discomfort and future
amenities, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- and same
is also retained
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
17. In view of the above discussion, the claimant would
be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,36,195/- as
against Rs.3,90,195/- as mentioned in the table below:
Head Amount (Rs.)
Towards pain and sufferings 60,000-00
Towards medical expenses 58,195-00
Towards conveyance, nursing 3,000-00
care, nourishment and other
incidental expenses
Towards loss of income during 40,000-00
laid up period
Towards loss of income due to 90,000-00
permanent disability
Towards future medical 50,000-00
expenses
Towards inconvenience, 35,000-00
discomfort and further
amenities
TOTAL 3,36,195-00
18. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed-in-
part;
2) The judgment and award dated 12th March,
2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and MACT, Madhugiri in M.V.C.No.412
of 2016 is modified;
NC: 2024:KHC:9078
MFA NO.1613 OF 2020
3) The claimant would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.3,36,195/- as against
Rs.3,90,195/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum;
4) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit the
balance amount of compensation before the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order;
5) The entire amount of compensation to be
released in favour of the claimant upon
proper identification;
6) The statutory deposit amount along with
original records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;
7) All other terms stipulated by the Tribunal
stands intact.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
