Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller vs Chethankumar on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
MFA No. 2286 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 2286 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, DODDABALLAPURA DEPOT
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 101
NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAY KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
CHETHANKUMAR
S/O THOLACHANAIK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
R/AT INDIRANAGARA
Digitally signed by KESHAVA ROAD, OPP.
PRAJWAL A GANAPATHI TEMPLE
Location: HIGH COURT HASSAN - 573 201 ...RESPONDENT
OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.584/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 5 TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,11,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
PAYMENT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
MFA No. 2286 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the KSRTC is challenging the
judgment and award dated 01.12.2016 passed in
MVC.No.584/2015 by the 5th Additional District and
Sessions Court and Additional MACT, Hassan (for short,
'the Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties will be referred to as per the status before the
Tribunal.
3. Undisputedly, there was an accident on
05.12.2014 at 10.30 p.m., while the petitioner was
alighting from the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-40/F-621
at Gandasi Hand Post, bus was moved suddenly, due
to which, he fell down inside the bus and sustained
injuries. After taking treatment at Janapriya Hospital,
Hassan, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Claim was
opposed by the KSRTC. The Tribunal after taking the
evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the
claim petition, granting Rs.3,11,000/- with interest at
9% p.a. Questioning the same, the KSRTC is before
this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Shri. D.Vijay
Kumar, learned counsel for the KSRTC and
Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for
the KSRTC that the petitioner though suffered
compression fracture, he was a Government employee,
post treatment, he has become normal and he has
resumed his work, there is no loss of future earnings.
The petitioner is drawing higher salary than what he
was drawing before the accident. The Tribunal has
erroneously assessed the future loss of income and
awarded interest at 9% p.a. No bank will offer such
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
rate of interest at the relevant point of time and sought
for reduction.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that, for no fault of the
petitioner, being passenger of the KSRTC he was made
to suffer compression fracture of spine, tenderness
over the pelvis, right hand and right shoulder. He was
under hospitalization for 7 days. The medical evidence
is placed through PW.2-Dr.Abdul Basheer that the
petitioner has suffered 20% of whole body disability,
which has affected future earning of the petitioner,
promotional aspects of the petitioner has affected on
account of disability, the Tribunal was right in
assessing loss of future income.
7. It is also contended that no compensation is
assessed towards incidental expenses such as
attendant, food and nourishment and conveyance, loss
of amenities and discomfort and loss of income during
laid up and it is submitted that it is a case for
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
enhancement rather than reduction. The petitioner is
having sustained the injuries in the year 2015
receiving compensation after 9 years has to be paid
interest at 9% p.a. and hence the Tribunal was right in
awarding such rate of interest.
8. I gave my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for
parties and perused the records.
9. The material on record shows that the
petitioner has suffered compression fracture of spine.
He was treated at Janapriya hospital, Hassan for 7
days, medical bills produced at Rs.26,000/- which
required to be reimbursed. Evidence on record shows
post treatment the petitioner has resumed his duty and
is earning higher salary as before the accident. It is not
a case for grant of future loss of income. The petitioner
has to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
suffering, incidental expenses at Rs.15,000/-, loss of
amenities and discomfort at Rs.40,000/-, loss of 1
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
month salary for laid up including inpatient. The salary
certificate shows he was drawing salary of Rs.26,542/-.
Thereby the total compensation comes to
Rs.1,47,542/- as against Rs.3,11,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal, thereby reduction of Rs.1,63,458/-.
10. As regarding rate of interest is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. In the
impugned judgment no special reasons are assigned
for awarding higher rate of interest. In the year 2015
till today no bank shall offer interest at 9% p.a. on any
fixed deposit. In this regard, the Division Bench of this
court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -vs-
Venkateshan.V. and Ors. in M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w
M.F.A.Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV) DD
24.08.2020 with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, at
Para 52 held as under:
"52.Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being
squarely applicable to the interest awarded by
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the
tribunal to award pendente lite interest and
discretion being vested with the Court/Tribunal
to award interest from the date of suit or petition
is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other
words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention
raised by the learned Advocates appearing for
the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted
and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ."
Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant is reasonable, in view of the same, the
petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% p.a. instead of
9% p.a..
11. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration,
in the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is
modified.
(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.1,47,542/- instead of
Rs.3,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
NC: 2024:KHC:36267
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realisation.
(iv) The KSRTC shall deposit the entire
compensation amount along with accrued
interest within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal along with records forthwith.
(vi) After disbursement, if any excess
compensation remains, it shall be paid to
the KSRTC.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM
