Karnataka High Court
Swamy H K vs The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
MFA No. 3993 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 1888 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3993 OF 2020 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1888 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFANO.3993/2020:
BETWEEN:
THE K.S.R.T.C
CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K.H.ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA AND:
GUPTA
SREENATH SRI SWAMY H.K.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O.KEMPEGOWDA H.N.
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT OKKALIGARA ROAD
HAMPAPURA HOBLI
H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED BY III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU IN MVC
NO.470/2019.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
MFA No. 3993 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 1888 of 2021
IN MFA.NO.1888/2021:
BETWEEN:
SWAMY H.K.
S/O.KEMPEGOWDA H.N.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT OKKALIGARA ROAD
HAMPAPURA HOBLI
H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC
BANNIMANTAP
MYSURU - 570 015
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED BY III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU IN MVC
NO.470/2019.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are preferred by the K.S.R.T.C.
(for short, 'the Corporation') as well as the claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 22.11.2019
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
passed in MVC.No.470/2019 by the Court of III Additional
District Judge and MACT, Mysuru (for short, 'the tribunal').
2. The appeal preferred by the Corporation is on the
ground that the judgment and award passed by the
tribunal is arbitrary and excessive compensation is
awarded, whereas, the appeal preferred by the claimant is
founded on the premise of inadequate and meager
compensation awarded by the tribunal.
3. Though these matters are listed for admission,
with consent of learned counsels for parties, they are
taken up for final disposal.
4. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 25.01.2019 at about 12.20 p.m., the claimant was
proceeding on his motor bike bearing registration No.KA-
45-X-5104 on Mysuru-Manandavadi road in H.D.Kote
Taluk near Hampapura Petrol Bunk, at that time, a KSRTC
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
Bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-4777 being driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from
opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of
the claimant, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries.
He was immediately shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru,
wherein he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was
shifted to ESI Hospital, wherein, he was inpatient for 49
days.
5.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and
healthy prior to the accident and was working as a
Compounder at KMF Company and earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained and
medical treatment expended, he filed a claim petition
seeking compensation against the respondent-Corporation.
5.2 On service of notice, the Corporation appeared
through its counsel and filed written statement denying
the claim made by the claimant including age, income,
avocation and the negligence attributed as against the
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
driver of the Bus and sought for dismissal of the claim
petition.
5.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
5.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to prove
the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and
the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as per
Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the respondent-
Corporation got examined a witness as RW.1 and not
marked documents.
5.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.2,16,631/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
5.6 Being aggrieved by the same, the Corporation is
before this Court in MFA.No.3993/2020 seeking to set
aside the judgment and award passed by the tribunal on
the ground of it being erroneous and the claimant is also
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
before this Court in MFA.No.1888/2021 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in
awarding meager compensation. Hence, he seeks to allow
the appeal and enhance the compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for Corporation
vehemently contends that the tribunal has erred in
awarding exorbitant compensation, which calls for
interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks
to allow his appeal by setting aside the judgment and
award passed by the tribunal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for claimant as well
as learned counsel for Corporation and perused the
impugned judgment and award.
9. The occurrence of accident, involvement of
vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant and the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
the Bus are established by the evidence adduced and
documents produced as per Exs.P1 to P13. Exs.P1 to P8
are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR
and laying of chargesheet against the driver of the Bus,
which has not been disputed or challenged. Hence, the
negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the
Bus. Exs.P9 to P13 are the medical records and
prescriptions, which depict the injuries sustained by the
claimant due to the occurrence of accident.
10. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income and disability suffered by the claimant, it is seen
that the tribunal taken income of the claimant at
Rs.9,500/- per month. However, it is alleged that the
claimant was working as a Compounder at KMF Company,
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month but no document
is produced as proof of income. However, the notional
income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes
Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019.
Hence, it is taken. The claimant was aged 60 years as on
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
the date of occurrence of accident and the appropriate
multiplier applied by the tribunal is '9', which does not call
for interference and the same is retained. PW.2-Doctor has
opined the disability at 20%. However, the tribunal has
taken the disability at 6.6%, which also does not call for
interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the
claimant would be entitled to the compensation of
Rs.99,792/- (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 9 x 6.6%) towards loss
of future income due to disability as against Rs.67,716/-
awarded by the tribunal.
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain
and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. In all,
Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
12. The tribunal awarded Rs.5,915/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards food and nourishment,
Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.24,500/-
towards attendant charges, which do not call for
interference and the same are retained.
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
13. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities in life. However, this Court deems it appropriate
to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all,
Rs.45,000/- is awarded under this head.
14. The tribunal awarded Rs.28,500/- towards loss of
income during laid-up period, whereas, the claimant was
inpatient for a period of 49 days. Therefore, the claimant
would require atleast five months period to recuperate and
to get back to his normal day to day activities. Hence, in
view of this Court enhancing the income from Rs.9,500/-
to Rs.14,000/-, the claimant would be entitled to
Rs.70,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 5) under this head.
15. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to the total compensation amount of
Rs.3,25,207/- as against Rs.2,16,631/- awarded by the
tribunal as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering 50,000-00
Medical expenses 5,915-00
Food and nourishment 15,000-00
Transportation charges 15,000-00
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
Loss of amenities in life 45,000-00
Future loss of income 99,792-00
Attendant charges 24,500-00
Loss of income during laid up period 70,000-00
TOTAL 3,25,207-00
16. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal preferred by the Corporation is
dismissed;
ii) The appeal preferred by the claimant is
allowed-in-part;
iii) The judgment and award dated 22.11.2019
passed in MVC.No.470/2019 by the Court of III
Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru, is
modified;
iv) The claimant is entitled to the compensation of
Rs.3,25,207/- as against Rs.2,16,631/-
awarded by the tribunal;
v) The balance compensation amount shall be paid
with interest @ 6% p.a. by the Corporation
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9222
vi) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimant in accordance with the
terms of the tribunal, upon proper verification;
vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
