Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Krishna on 16 October, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:41817
                                                         MFA No. 3066 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2021(MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                      K.S.R.T.C. DEPT.,
                      K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
                      BENGALURU-500 027.
                      REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SMT. RADHA B. P.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      KRISHNA
                      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                      S/O DYAVEGOWDA,
                      R/AT HONNIGANHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by   BANNIMUKKODLU, KODIHALLI HOBLI,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
                      KANAKAPURA TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA                                                      ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. NITHYA V., ADVOCATE
                      FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

                           THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
                      JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2021 PASSED IN
                      MVC NO.2096/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
                      JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), AWARDING
                      COMPENSATION OF RS.4,92,580/- WITH INTEREST AT 8
                      PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
                      DEPOSIT.
                                   -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:41817
                                              MFA No. 3066 of 2021




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA


                          ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is the outcome of the order that is rendered

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC

No.2096/2019 dated 20.02.2021.

2. The respondent herein filed a petition claiming

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in total on the ground that he

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the appellant herein. The Tribunal through the

impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,92,580/- as

compensation. Projecting that its driver was not at fault and

therefore no compensation is required to be paid, the appellant

is before this Court.

3. Heard Smt.Radha B.P., learned counsel for appellant

as well as Ms.Nithya, learned counsel who represents

Sri.Prakash M.H. learned counsel on record for respondent.

NC: 2024:KHC:41817

4. The manner of happening of accident as projected

by the respondent before the Tribunal is that on 18.02.2019

while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration

number KA-15 J-8553 towards Kodihalli and when he reached

near Byraveshwara temple, Doddakabbahalli village, a KSRTC

bus bearing Registration No.KA-42 F-307 which was driven by

its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his

motorcycle. Due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries.

5. With a contention that the claim of the respondent

is false, learned counsel Smt.B.P. Radha submitted that this

appeal is filed on three pertinent grounds. Firstly, that there is

contributory negligence on part of the respondent. Secondly,

the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is not justifiable.

Thirdly, that the interest granted is on higher side.

6. Arguing on the first ground i.e. contributory

negligence, learned counsel Smt.B.P. Radha submitted that the

accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the

respondent herein. Learned counsel stated that the respondent

was riding the motorcycle without following traffic rules and

regulations and he himself dashed against the appellant's bus

NC: 2024:KHC:41817

and fell down and thus there is negligence on part of the

respondent. Learned counsel stated that though a plea

regarding contributory negligence was taken, yet the Tribunal

fastened entire liability upon the appellant.

7. The submission that is made by Ms. Nithya,

representing the respondent, on the other hand is that the

police after due investigation laid charge sheet against the

driver of the appellant. The contents of the charge sheet were

not challenged before any forum. Also no evidence was

produced to show that the respondent/claimant was at fault.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.

8. A plea was taken before the Tribunal that the

respondent/ claimant was riding the motorcycle in a rash and

negligent manner, by consuming alcohol and without wearing

helmet. However, as rightly contended by Ms.Nithya, learned

counsel for the respondent, no substantive proof was produced

before the Tribunal to establish those facts. Though the

appellant produced evidence of Rws.1 and 2 and Ex.R1 -

Photographs and CD, the said evidence does not establish that

NC: 2024:KHC:41817

the respondent/claimant was riding the motorcycle under the

influence of alcohol as contended. Undisputedly, police after

thorough investigation laid charge sheet alleging that the driver

of the appellant was at fault and that he committed the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

Without there being any convincing evidence in respect of the

plea taken, the appellant cannot contend that the Tribunal

should attribute contributory negligence on part of the

respondent/claimant. The Tribunal in the impugned order gave

a categorical finding that there is no rebuttal evidence to nullify

the case of the claimant. This court does not find any grounds

to interfere with such a finding. Therefore, this Court holds that

the Tribunal did not err in fastening the liability upon the

appellant.

9. Coming to the second aspect regarding the

quantum that is awarded as compensation and the aspect of

disability, undisputedly the respondent/claimant sustained

fracture of right tibia, which is grievous in nature. PW2

assessed the disability in respect of right lower limb as 28.74%

and in respect of whole body as 14.37%. The Tribunal took the

NC: 2024:KHC:41817

disability as 12% in respect of whole body. Said assessment

needs no interference.

10. Coming to the income of the respondent/claimant

by the date of accident, as per his version, as an agriculturist

he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. As rightly contended by

Smt.B.P.Radha, no proof to that effect was produced before the

Tribunal. The Tribunal took the notional income of the

respondent/claimant as Rs.15,000/- per month, making an

observation at paragraph 24 of the impugned order that basing

on the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, the notional income is taken as Rs.15,000/- per

month. Admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2019.

Even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the

national income as Rs.14,000/- per month and not Rs.15,000/-

per month as observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court

considers desirable to take the notional income of the

respondent/claimant as Rs.14,000/- per month. Without

disturbing other parameters, the compensation which the

respondent/claimant is entitled to receive under the head loss

of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability

will be as under;


                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:41817





           Description                   Amount
                                            Rs.
    Notional income per month              14,000-00
    Annual income (14,000x12)            1,68,000-00
    Applying the appropriate
                                        28,56,000-00
    multiplier '17'(1,68,000x17)
    Loss of future earnings,
    permanent            physical       3,42,720-00
    disability being 12%

11. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a

sum of Rs.3,67,200/- under the head loss of future earnings

due to permanent physical disability. However, the sum which

the respondent/claimant is entitled to towards loss of future

earnings on account of permanent physical disability is

Rs.3,42,720/-. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.24,480/- in excess.

12. Coming to the last ground that is in respect of

interest awarded, the Tribunal through the impugned order

directed the appellant to pay the awarded amount with interest

at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. The interest is required to be granted basing on

the current banking rate. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that the sum which the respondent/claimant is entitled to

receive should carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of deposit.

NC: 2024:KHC:41817

13. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in

MVC No.2096/2019 dated 20.02.2021 is reduced by

Rs.24,480/-.