Karnataka High Court

Shri. Nagaraj S/O Annappa Masti vs The Managing Director on 24 October, 2024

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB
                                                        MFA No. 103134 of 2019
                                                    C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                              PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                                AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103134 OF 2019 (MV-I)
                                                C/W
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102437 OF 2019 (MV-I)

                   IN MFA NO. 103134 OF 2019

                   BETWEEN:

                   SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O. ANNAPPA MASTI,
                   AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE
                   AND MILK VENDING, NOW NIL,
                   R/O. BASAWAN GALLI, HUDLI,
                   TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R
Location: High
                   AND:
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                   N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL
                   ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C.,
                   BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)


                          THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
                   PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND
                   MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2019 BY
                                -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB
                                     MFA No. 103134 of 2019
                                 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019



ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION IN MVC NO.2520/2017 PASSED BY
THE XI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 102437 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, IN APPEAL
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.
                                                  ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. NAGARAJ ANNAPPA MASTI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MILK VENDING, NOW NIL,
R/O. BASAVAN GALLI, HUDLI,
TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2520/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT,
BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.04.2019 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC.

       THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -3-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB
                                         MFA No. 103134 of 2019
                                     C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019



CORAM:         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                AND
                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

1. MFA No.103134/2019 is filed by the claimant and MFA

No.102437/2019 is filed by NWKRTC under Section 173(1) of

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the judgment and award

dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned XI Addl. District Judge

& Addl. MACT, Belagavi2 in MVC No.2520/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated

are that on 25.09.2017, the claimant was proceeding on

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22-EV-8459 from his

land towards his house along with his relative as a pillion rider.

When they reached near Sunagar Halla on Gokak-Belagavi

road, at about 16.00 hours, one KSRTC bus bearing registration

No.KA-22/F-1911 being driven by its driver at a high speed and

in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle from

opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the impact,

the claimant fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and

'Act' for short

'Tribunal' for short

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

immediately, he was shifted to Lakeview Hospitalm Belagavi,

wherein he was an inpatient from 25.09.2017 to 3.10.2017.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act,

seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant

amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and

other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident

occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent/Corporation

appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims

Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the

evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has

partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,91,100/- along with interest

at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved,

the present appeals have been filed.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

6. Sri. M.K. Soudagar, the learned counsel for the

Corporation has raised the following contentions:

NEGLIGENCE

The accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant

himself. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle

in the middle of the road, in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed to right portion of the bus, due to the impact, the

claimant fell down and sustained injuries, as is evident from

Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama and Ex.P4 & P5-MVA Reports. But,

the Tribunal without considering these aspects of the matter

has erred in holding that the driver of the bus alone was

negligent in causing the accident. He further contended that

the rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective

driving license. The police have filed charge sheet against the

rider of the motorcycle as well as driver of the bus for the

offences punishable under Sections 3, 5, 180, 181, 146, 196 of

the MV Act. Thus,it is very clear that the rider of the motorcycle

was not holding DL and also he was not competent to ride the

motorcycle. Therefore, he has also contributed to the accident

in question. However, the Tribunal having lost sight of these

facts has erred in holding that the driver of the bus alone was

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

negligent in causing the accident and saddled entire liability on

the Corporation to pay compensation.

QAUNTUM OF COMPENSATION

a) Firstly, the claimant has suffered head injury and he has

examined Dr.Chandrashekhar T.R., who is a psychiatrist, but he

is not a neurologist. However, PW2 issued Disability Certificate,

who is not eligible to assess the disability of the claimant. On

the basis of the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal assessed whole

body disability of the injured at 10%, which is on the higher

side.

b) Secondly, he contended that even though the claimant

has claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per

month, but no proof of income is produced to establish the

sane. Under that circumstance, the Tribunal has committed an

error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per

month, which is on the higher side.

c) Lastly, he contended that considering the injuries suffered

by the claimant and also medical evidence on record, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of pain

and suffering, loss of amenities and other incidental expenses is

on the higher side.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought

to allow the appeal filed by the Corporation by dismissing the

appeal of the claimant.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following counter-contentions:

NEGLIGENCE

The accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part

of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus came in opposite

direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed to the claimant and due to the impact, he fell down and

sustained injuries. After the accident, complaint has been

lodged against the driver of the bus. On the basis of the

complaint lodged, the police have registered FIR and after

investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the

bus. Considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal

has rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in

causing the accident.

QAUNTUM OF COMPENSATION

The claimant was aged 20 years and he asserts that he

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing milk vending

business as well as agricultural work. The Tribunal assessed

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month,

which is on the lower side. He further contended that due to

the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he

was an inpatient for about 9 days in the hospital. The claimant

has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on

the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought

to allow the appeal filed by the claimant.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

judgment and award of the Tribunal.

NEGLIGENCE

9. The case of the claimant is that on 25.09.2017 the

claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-22-EV-8459 from his land towards his house along with

his relative as a pillion rider. When they reached near Sunagar

Halla on Gokak-Belagavi road, at about 16.00 hours, one

KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1911 being driven

by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant from opposite

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

direction and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the

claimant sustained grievous head injuries and was hospitalized.

10. To prove the case, the claimant has examined himself as

PW-1, doctor as PW-2 and produced 13 documents. The

claimant in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in

the claim petition. To disprove the case, the respondent has

examined the driver of the bus as RW-1 and also examined

officer of the Corporation as RW2, but did not produce any

documents.

11. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before

the Claims Tribunal, the standard of proof is much below than

what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case.

No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on

the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things

necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the

Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or

criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the

legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings

under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings

under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA

RAM -v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5

SCC 656, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

12. The claimant in his evidence has specifically stated that

he was proceeding in the motorcycle as a pillion rider and the

driver of the bus came in opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. After the

accident, complaint has been lodged against the driver of the

bus. The police have registered FIR and after thorough

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of

the bus.

13. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of

parties and materials available on record such as FIR,

complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet, has

rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus alone

was negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal has rightly

answered the issue No.1 in the affirmative. There is no error in

the said finding of the Tribunal. Hence, the finding of the

Tribunal regarding negligence, is confirmed.

14. In respect of the contention of the Corporation that the

rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid driving license,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs.

Surinder Singh & Others3 has held at paragraph-9 of its

judgment as under:

9. If a person, drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same by itself, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the Courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently, which

(2008) 12 SCC 436

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

(Emphasis supplied)

A reading of the above paragraph makes it very clear that

merely because, rider of motorcycle was not holding driving license,

that itself cannot be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

Negligence cannot be fixed on the shoulders of the rider of the

motorcycle merely for not having driving license, unless he was riding

the motorcycle rashly and negligently. Riding the motorcycle without

DL is an offence under the MV Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that

there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle due to which the accident has occurred. Therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly held that driver of the bus alone was negligent in

causing the accident.

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

15. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained following

injuries:

a) Linear undisplaced fracture of occipital bone;

b) Left side gradually extending and involving posterior at right lateral wall of foramina magnum;

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

c) Scalp hematoma in left parieto-occipital region and acute subdural bleed in right fronto-parieto- temporal region.

d) Multiple hemorrhage contusion in right basi/anterior frontal lobe.

16. The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The

doctor has stated that the claimant suffered disability to an

extent of 25 to 30%. The Tribunal taking note of the evidence

of PW2 has assessed whole body disability of the claimant at

10%, which in our view is just and proper and does not call for

modification.

17. Further, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant

at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The

claimant has not produced any proof of income to establish the

same. In the absence of any documentary evidence, notional

income of the claimant has to be assessed as per guidelines

issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per

the said guidelines, notional income for the accident of the year

2017 is Rs.10,250/- per month. There is no dispute with

regard to age of the claimant as 20 years and appropriate

multiplier of 18. Applying the same, the loss of future income

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB

of the claimant works out to Rs.2,21,400/- (Rs.10,250 x 12 x

18 x 10/100).

18. Considering the nature of injuries and also duration of

treatment taken by the claimant, the compensation amount

awarded under the head of loss of amenities at Rs.20,000/- is

on the higher side and same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The

compensation awarded under the other heads is just and

reasonable the same is undisturbed. Therefore, without

modifying the quantum of compensation, we hold that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,91,100/- is

just and proper and same is undisturbed.

19. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) Both appeals are disposed off to the aforesaid

extent.

b) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is

modified.

c) The appellant/Corporation is directed to deposit

the compensation amount as awarded by the

Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the date of