Karnataka High Court
The Local Authority, State Transport ... vs Sri. Vadivelu on 6 January, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:158
MFA No. 2665 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2665 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE LOCAL AUTHORITY,
STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING
NAMELY THE KSRTC,
THE VEHICLE OF WHICH HAS BEEN
INSURANCE EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION
146(2) AND (3) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY THEIR ODER NO.HTD.TMI 106/68,
VALID DATE 1-04-1968 TO 31-12-2018,
KSRTC MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA,
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER
K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KAVYA R
1. SRI VADIVELU,
Location: S/O. ARMUGAM,
High Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS DRIVER,
R/O. SIDLIPURA VILLAGE,
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI B.S.GIRISH
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS KSRTC
BUS DRIVER, BILL NO.1590,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:158
MFA No. 2665 of 2021
K.R. PET DIVISION,
R/O MANDYA DIVISION,
BASVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBALLA, SOMANATHAPURA POST,
K.R. PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS Miscellaneous First Appeal IS FILED under section
173(1) OF Motor vehicles ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 31.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.439/2019 ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Corporation
challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2020
passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi (for short 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.439/2019.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:158
3. It is the case of the claimant that the claimant was
a pillion rider along with one Manjunath. When they were
proceeding slowly from Bhadravathi to reach Sidlipura
village on N.H.206, B.H.Road near M.C.Halli, the driver of
the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.11.F.0483 came
in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction
and dashed against the motorbike, which was ridden by
one Manjunath, who died on the spot. Consequently, the
claimant, who was a pillion rider, sustained injuries to his
face, head, fractured to both legs and other injuries. The
claimant was an inpatient and undertook treatment. Due
to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the
claimant filed the claim petition against the Corporation
and the driver of the vehicle.
3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed their respective statement
of objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:158
3.2 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as
PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents
as Exs.P1 to P20. On the other hand, respondents
examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents
as Exs.R1 to R9.
3.4 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.5,22,776/- with interest @ 6% per
annum (excluding Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head
future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its
realisation and also held that respondent No.2-Corporation
is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two
months.
NC: 2025:KHC:158
3.5 The Corporation, being dissatisfied with the
judgment and award, is before this Court challenging the
same on several grounds urged in the appeal.
4. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for appellant-Corporation that the tribunal has
committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation.
It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant-
Corporation that there is negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle, due to which the accident
occurred. The other contentions taken by the learned
counsel for appellant-Corporation are with regard to the
width of the road and there being no negligence on the
part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, it was the negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who was in the
middle of the road and attributed negligence on behalf of
the rider of the motorcycle. Be that as it may, in the
present case on hand, the claimant is not the rider,
whereas he is a pillion rider. The rider of the motorcycle
suffered injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot
NC: 2025:KHC:158
and the legal representatives of the deceased have
preferred a claim petition. The same was questioned by
the Corporation in MFA No.3914/2020 which came to be
disposed off without interference except with regard to the
reduction of the interest from 7% per annum to 6% per
annum. Therefore, nothing much would survive for the
appellant-Corporation to take contrary stand.
5. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
Corporation, a short point that would arise for
consideration is that:
"Whether the tribunal has awarded
exorbitant compensation?"
6. The tribunal, after consideration of the materials
placed before the Court, has taken the income at
Rs.9,000/- per month and the age of the claimant was 28
years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly
applied the multiplier at '17'. The tribunal assessing the
disability at 10% to the whole body, arrived at total
NC: 2025:KHC:158
compensation of Rs.5,22,776/- along with interest at 6%
per annum.
7. Though several grounds are urged by the learned
counsel for appellant-Corporation that the income taken
and the loss of income during the laid-up period calculated
at six months are exorbitant, I do not find any cogent
reason to interfere with the same for the reason that even
according to the notional income chart, the income for the
accident of the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/-, whereas the
tribunal has taken income at Rs.9,000/-. However, the
same would be adjusted towards the exorbitant
compensation awarded by the tribunal. The interest
component awarded by the tribunal at 6% per annum also
does not call for interference. Under the circumstance,
there is no ground for interference in the present appeal.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed;
NC: 2025:KHC:158
ii) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper
verification;
iii) The amount in deposit, if any, before this
Court by the Corporation shall be transmitted
to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
iv) Though notice to the respondent-claimant is
held sufficient, no further order is required on
service of notice to the respondent-claimant;
v) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
CPN
