Karnataka High Court
Shanthamma vs Managing Director on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
MFA No. 2560 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. 2560 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHANTHAMMA
W/O MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O KARIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC RURAL DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA,
MYSURU - 570 015.
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA ...RESPONDENT
Location: High (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1067/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
MFA No. 2560 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 15.01.2021 passed by VII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short 'the
Tribunal') in MVC.No.1067/2019. This appeal is founded on the
premise of inadequate and meagre compensation. Hence, the
appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
That on 30.07.2019 at about 4.00 p.m, the claimant was
alighting from the KSRTC bus No.KA-11-F-0212, the driver of
the said bus suddenly moved the bus in a rash and negligent
manner. Due to which claimant fell down and sustained
fracture of her left hand and other minor injuries to her body
and she shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru for treatment.
Thereafter she shifted to Sanjeevini Hospital and under went
surgery. Due to the injuries suffered and medical expenses
incurred, she filed claim petition seeking compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
3.1. On service of notice, respondent - Corporation filed
statement of objections, denied the claim of the claimant
including age, avocation, income and sought for dismissal of
the claim, contending that it was the negligence of the claimant
that cause the accident.
3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish
the case, the claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and Doctor
as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the
other hand, respondent did not adduce their evidence either
orally or documentary.
3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.2,95,553/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till the date of deposit.
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment and award.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellant-claimant is that, the tribunal has committed an error
in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for interference
at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement
of compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
Corporation submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just
and reasonable compensation, which does not call for
interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss
the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for claimant and
learned counsel for respondent - Corporation perused the
impugned judgment and award and produced the documents
Exs.P1 to P8 is the police records, which depicts filing of FIR
and charge sheet against the driver of the Bus. Exs.P9 to P15
is the medical records, prescriptions, bills and copy of Pan card
and Aadhaar card. Exs.P1 to P8 clearly depicts filing of FIR and
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
charge sheet and negligence is rightly attributed against the
driver of the Bus.
7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income
and disability suffered by the claimant, as on the date of
occurrence of accident, the claimant was aged about 37 years.
She was working as a daily wager/Coolie, said to be earning a
sum of Rs.18,000/- p.m, but no documents has produced to
sustain the same. The tribunal has assessed the income to be
Rs.14,000/- p.m, however, as taken the income at Rs.13,250/-,
considering the fact that the accident has taken place near a
village in Mysuru. Whereas, the notional income chart
prescribed by the Legal Service Authority prescribes
Rs.14,000/- p.m, same has to be taken even in the present
case. Hence, income is to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m for the
year 2019, as the claimant was aged 37 years, appropriate
multiplier would be '15', which is correctly taken by the
tribunal.
8. Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has
assessed the disability to an extent of 25% to the limb and the
tribunal has assessed the disability of 8% to the whole body as
functional disability. I do not find any reasons to interfere at
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
the same, disability is retained at 8%. Therefore, the loss of
future income due to disability would be Rs.2,01,600/-
(Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 15 x 8%) as against Rs.1,90,800/-.
9. Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded
Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, the claimant
would be entitled to Rs.45,000/- under this head.
10. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the
tribunal has awarded Rs.27,000/-. The claimant would require
atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to
his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would
be entitled to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 3) under this head.
11. Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.32,753/- is
awarded on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimant.
Same is retained.
12. Towards loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded
Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.15,000/-. In all, the claimant
would be entitled to Rs.25,000/- under this head.
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
13. Towards food, conveyance and nourishment charges
tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Same is retained.
14. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs.3,56,353/- as against
Rs.2,95,553/- as mentioned in the table below:
Head Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income Rs.2,01,600-00
Pain and suffering Rs.45,000-00
Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up Rs.42,000-00
period
Food, conveyance and Rs.10,000-00
attendant charges
Medical expenses Rs.32,753-00
TOTAL Rs.3,56,353-00
15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 15.01.2021 passed
by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mysuru in MVC.No.1067/2019 is modified;
NC: 2024:KHC:9166
iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,56,353/- with interest at 6% as against
Rs.2,95,553/-;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid
with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order;
v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the claimant, upon proper
verification;
vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
