Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Ksrtc vs K.Subramani on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
MFA No. 3493 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3493 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL DIVISION,
K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally K. SUBRAMANI
signed by S/O LATE KARUPA SWAMY,
MAMATHA R
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of R/A NO.3096,
Karnataka WARD NO.4,
BHAGATHSINGNAGAR,
IST CROSS,
CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562 101
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2744/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX C/C XIII
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
MFA No. 3493 of 2022
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-15),
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,55,658/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TO
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.2744/2019 dated
29.11.2021.
3. Respondent herein filed a petition claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road
traffic accident. The tribunal considered the totality of
evidence produced, awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,658/- as
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
compensation and directed the appellant herein to pay the
same. Aggrieved by such an award, this appeal is filed.
4. Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant
contends that this appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly,
that the Driver of the appellant was not negligent and
therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
Secondly, that the sum awarded as compensation is highly
excessive.
5. The version of a respondent/claimant is that on
02.05.2019 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was proceeding
on his motorcycle from Prashanthnagar towards
Peresandra, the appellant's bus came at a high speed and
tried to over take a lorry which was proceeding ahead of it
and thereby dashed against his motorcycle due to which
he fell down and sustained injuries.
6. The contention of the appellant is that the
respondent/claimant was riding the motorcycle at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and ultimately
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the
bus.
7. Respondent/claimant got examined himself as PW-
1 and narrated the manner of happening of accident. He
also produced Ex.P-1-FIR, Ex.P-2-Complaint, Ex.P-4-Spot
Mahazar, Ex.P-5-Sketch, Ex.P-6-IMV Report and Ex.P-7-
Charge Sheet to substantiate his version. On the other
hand the appellant examined his Driver as RW-1.
8. In the impugned order there is a clear mention
that RW-1 during the course of cross examination
admitted that a case was registered against him and
ultimately police filed charge sheet against him. Though
RW-1 stated that he went to police station for lodging
complaint but police did not take his complaint, no proof
was produced to that effect. Also no steps were taken
thereafter either by RW-1 or by the appellant to project
their version by lodging either a private complaint or by
sending the complaint to the Higher Police Officials. Thus,
except the bare statement of RW-1, there is no material
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
on record or convincing proof that the
respondent/claimant was negligent. On the other hand by
all the evidence produced, the respondent/claimant
established that due to the negligence of the Driver of the
appellant the accident occurred.
9. Coming to the second ground that is in respect of
amount that is awarded as compensation, the tribunal
granted a sum of Rs.2,55,658/- as compensation divided
under following heads:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards Loss of future 1,32,000-00
income
Towards pain and sufferings 20,000-00
Loss of income during the 20,000-00
period of treatment, rest,
food, nourishment and
attendant charges
Towards loss of amenities 20,000-00
Towards Hospital and 63,658-00
medicine charges
Total 2,55,658-00
10. It is not in dispute that the respondent/claimant
sustained communited open fracture of right knee patella
with effusion and underwent a surgery.
NC: 2024:KHC:44725
11. Having considered the nature of injury sustained,
the treatment taken and the disability which was assessed
by PW-2, this Court is of the view that the amount
awarded as compensation is highly justifiable.
12. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the view that there are no grounds to honour
the request of the appellant for setting aside the impugned
order.
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed without
costs.
Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
