Karnataka High Court
Sri. D. Devegowda vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 23 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42651
MFA No. 2243 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. D. DEVEGOWDA,
S/O. DEVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHINAGARA LAYOUT,
PANDAVAPURA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 434.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION,
MYSURU - 570 015.
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. K. NAGARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 619/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42651
MFA No. 2243 of 2021
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the order that is rendered by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pandavapura in M.V.C.
No.619/2018 dated 17.09.2019.
2. This is a claimants appeal. On the ground that he
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the
appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.10,55,000/- in total. The tribunal through the impugned
order awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.
Dissatisfied with the sum awarded, the appellant is before this
Court.
3. Heard Sri.P.Mahadevaswamy learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.K.Nagarajaiah who argued representing
Smt. Radha B.P learned counsel on record for the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:42651
4. The crux of the case as projected by the appellant is
that on 31.12.2017 while the appellant was proceeding on his
Hero Honda motorcycle, from Pandavapura towards Hosakote,
a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-4733 which was
being driven by its driver at a high speed and rash and
negligent manner, tried to overtake his motorcycle and thereby
dashed against the motorcycle resulting in the accident to
occur.
5. Arguing the matter, Sri.P.Mahadevaswamy learned
counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained
injuries all over the body, took treatment as inpatient for a
period of three days and underwent necessary procedures
during the course of treatment. Appellant as an agriculturist
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the injuries
sustained he lost his earnings for a period of six months. Also
the appellant incurred huge amount for treatment. Further the
appellant became disabled and PW-2 assessed the disability as
24%. But without considering the evidence produced, the
tribunal awarded a meager sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as
compensation which is unjustifiable.
NC: 2024:KHC:42651
6. Per contra the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent is that there is only one grievous injury and that
apart the appellant did not undergo any surgery and thus the
amount awarded as compensation is highly justifiable.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
avulsion of skin over the dorsum of the nose, soft tissue injury
over the forehead, abrasion over the right wrist, abrasion over
the right foot and fracture and dislocation of nasal bone.
Though PW-2 deposed that there is fracture and dislocation of
nasal bone, the tribunal disbelieved the said statement.
Admittedly, the appellant did not undergo any surgery. Further
more it is clearly brought on record that the appellant took
treatment as inpatient only for a period of 3 days.
8. The appellant succeeded in establishing that he was an
agriculturist by the date of accident. However, the appellant did
not produce any proof with regard to his earnings.
9. Having considered all these aspects the tribunal
awarded a global sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. The
said amount cannot be termed to be unreasonable. The aspect
of disability is not established by the appellant in clear terms.
NC: 2024:KHC:42651
The established Principle of law is that the compensation that is
awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, should neither be
excessive nor be too low.
10. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the sum awarded as compensation
by the tribunal through the impugned order is appropriate. This
Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned
order or to enhance the amount as sought for.
Thus, the appeal stands dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
