Karnataka High Court
Pavithra vs The Managing Director on 29 May, 2024
-1-
MFA No. 905 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A NO.905 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PAVITHRA
D/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/O THOTAMADAGALU VILLAGE,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATHISHA T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, TUMAKURU DIVISION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
Digitally THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC,
signed by K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
REKHA R BENGALURU - 560 027
Location: ...RESPONDENT
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO a) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AWARD DATED
13.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.855/2017 BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT MADHUGIRI AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT; b) PASS ANY
SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS ON THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 905 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, is by the claimant, seeking enhancement of
the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the injuries
sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident dated
26.12.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Facts: It is the case of the petitioner that on
26.12.2016, at around 5-30 p.m, she was travelling in
KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA-06-F-798 (for
short 'offending vehicle') from Madhugiri to her village. In
front of the KEB Power Station on Madhugiri-Pavagada
Road, on account of rash or negligent driving of the driver
of the bus, the left tire bursted and accident was caused.
In the said accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries
resulting in permanent partial disability. Despite prolong
treatment, she is not completely cured. As the employer of
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
the driver who caused the accident, respondent is liable to
pay the compensation.
4. Respondent has appeared through counsel and
filed written statement, denying that the accident occurred
due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Respondent has also denied that in the said accident,
petitioner suffered grievous injuries and they have
resulted in permanent partial disability. The compensation
awarded is highly exorbitant, fanciful and without any
basis and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has
framed necessary issues.
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner has
examined her father as PW-1, Doctor as PW-2. She has
relied upon Ex.P1 to 13.
7. On behalf of respondent one witness is
examined as RW-1. No documents are marked on behalf
of respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
8. Vide the impugned judgment and award the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition granting
compensation in a sum of Rs.65,900/- and directed
respondent to pay the compensation with interest at 6%
p.a, as detailed under:
Heads Amount
In Rs.
Towards pain and sufferings 25,000
Towards future medical expenses 4,900
Towards conveyance, nursing care, 1,000
nourishment and towards other incidental
expenses
Towards inconvenience, discomfort and 35,000
future amenities
TOTAL 65,900
9. Respondents have not challenged the impugned
judgment and award.
10. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner
that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under
the head loss of future earnings. The compensation
granted under different heads is also on the lower side and
requires enhancement.
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
petitioner has relied upon the following decision.
12. In support of his argument learned counsel for
appellant has relied upon the decision in Chetana and Ors.
Vs. Babuji M and Ors. (Chetana)1.
13. On the other hand learned counsel representing
respondent supported the impugned judgment and award
and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the record.
15. At the outset, it is relevant to note that at the
time of accident, petitioner was aged 17 years and was a
student. Admittedly, she was not earning. So far as the
injury suffered by the petitioner concerned, she has not
even undergone any surgery and has been treated
conservatively. In the light of the same, the compensation
2021 (5) KCCR 200 (DB)
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
granted is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the
appeal. The judgment in Chetana is a death case, and
therefore it is not applicable to the case on hand.
16. Having regard to the fact that the respondent
has not challenged the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal, its findings that accident occurred due to the
rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle and in the said accident, petitioner sustained
injuries has attained finality.
17. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the
petitioner was a student. She was not having any earning.
As per the material placed on record coupled with the
testimony of PW-2, it is proved that petitioner has
sustained fracture of 1st metatarsal bone of right foot and
2nd metatarsal bone of left foot. She has not undergone
any surgery. She has been treated conservatively by
putting POP cast. When the incident took place, the
petitioner was aged 17 years. However, when PW-2 Dr
Ramakrishna T.N examined her on 24.06.20019 she was
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
aged 20 years. i.e, when the case came up for evidence,
she had already attended majority. However, she has not
chosen to appear before the Court and give evidence. It
would have allowed the Tribunal to observe whether really
the injury sustained by the petitioner have resulted in
permanent partial disability. Having regard to the nature
of the injury, sustain and the treatment received by the
petitioner, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the
injuries have not resulted in such a disability so as to
affect the earning capacity of the petitioner.
18. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for
respondent, the decision in Chetana is arising out of
death of 17 year old and therefore, it is not applicable to
the case on hand. As noted earlier, though the injury
sustained by the petitioner are classified as a grievous,
there is no evidence of it being having the potential of
affecting the earning capacity of the petitioner. Since the
petitioner was a minor when the accident took place,
having the youth on her side, there is every possibility of
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
attaining normalcy. Therefore, her presence before the
Tribunal was necessary to ascertain the exact damage. In
the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled for compensation under the head loss of earning
capacity.
19. Now coming to the quantum of compensation
granted by the Tribunal whether it is just and reasonable.
20. Taking into consideration the fact that there is
no evidence of loss of capacity to earn and therefore, no
compensation is granted under the said head and looking
to the nature of the injuries suffered, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the compensation granted under
the pain and suffering be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, loss of
future amenities to Rs.40,000/-, medical expenses to
Rs.10,000/- and towards conveyance, nursing care,
nourishment, and incident expenses to Rs.5,000/- would
meet the ends of justice.
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
21. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- as against
Rs.65,900/- granted by the Tribunal together with interest
at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation as detailed
below:
Heads Amount Amount
granted by granted by
the Tribunal this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Towards pain and sufferings 25,000 50,000
Towards future medical 4,900 10,000
expenses
Towards conveyance, 1,000 5,000
nursing care, nourishment
and towards other incidental
expenses
Towards inconvenience, 35,000 40,000
discomfort and future
amenities
TOTAL 65,900 1,05,000
22. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and
accordingly, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Petitioner is entitled for compensation in a
sum of Rs.1,05,000/- as against
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17996
Rs.65,900/- granted by the Tribunal
together with interest at 6% p.a. on the
enhanced compensation.
(iii) Respondent being the owner/insurer is
directed to pay the compensation together
with interest at 6% p.a on the enhanced
compensation from the date of petition till
realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited if any) within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court records along with copy of this
judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
