Dismissed

Karnataka State Road v. Thirupathi Naika

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2021MFA/8846/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation appealed against an award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court, upon admission, examined the contention regarding excessive compensation for pain, disability, and future prospects. Finding the Tribunal's assessment reasonable, the High Court dismissed the appeal without admission.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant.

Karnataka State Road Vs Thirupathi Naika — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. DESAI

¶5

MFA NO.8846/2012(MV-SJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHAMRAJANAGAR DEPOT BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. H.R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THIRUPATHI NAIKA S/O LATE KALANAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O YANAGALLI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.371/2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,57,705/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A PENDETE-LITE AND FUTURE

¶15

¶16

INTEREST TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF AWARD AMOUNT.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard both the learned counsel. At the stage of admission itself, with consent the matter is disposed off.

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the KSRTC challenging the judgment passed by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), Chamarajanagar in MVC No.371/2010 dated 02.05.2012, wherein the Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.1,58,205/- with costs. Less Rs.500/- which is already paid by the KSRTC.

¶21

The claimants filed the petition before the Tribunal contending that on 23.07.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner along with other passengers

¶22

¶23

were traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F3838. When bus came near Ettagalli betta near slope which is situated towards Yanagalli village, the driver of the said bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the bus turned turtle towards Halla, due to this the petitioner and other passengers sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed.

¶24

The respondents resisted the claim petition denying the liability. They denied the factum of accident, involvement of KSRTC bus and injury sustained by the petitioner and rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus, income, age and nature of occupation before the Tribunal. The petitioner in this petition and other petitioners in other connected MVC cases gave evidence as Pw, and they also got examined an Orthopedic Surgeon by name Dr.Rajashekar as Cw.1 and got marked 2 documents

¶25

¶26

as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The respondent-KSRTC examined the evidence of the driver as RW.1.

¶27

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal

¶28

by common judgment passed the impugned order which is assailed in this appeal.

¶29

Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, the learned

¶30

counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.Sumathi, learned counsel for respondent. I have perused the records and judgment.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant argued

¶32

that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and compensation of Rs.55,000/awarded under the head Pain and Suffering and Mental Agony is on higher side. There was only one grievous injury. Learned counsel also argued that except outpatient slip and X-ray there are no other records to show that he was inpatient for 8 days.

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel further argued that the

¶35

evidence of Doctor is highly exaggerated and he has stated that there is disability of 35% which is erroneous. On the other hand the evidence of Doctor indicates that the fracture was united. Hence, the compensation of Rs.70,000/awarded under Disability, loss of future income and loss of future prospects of life and unhappiness is on higher side. On this ground, learned counsel prays to modify the award.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶37

respondent supports the judgment and contended that Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and appreciating in a proper perspective has passed the impugned order which needs no interference.

¶38

From the above, the point that arises for

¶39

my consideration is:

¶40

¶41

“Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, illegal and needs interference by this Court?”

¶42

The medical records-Ex.P6 shows that the

¶43

petitioner in this case has sustained contusion on left cheek and on left lower eye lid; scratch abrasion of shin of right leg; abrasion upper 1/3^rd shin right joint; abrasion front of right knee; abrasion 1/3^rd on right thigh. Conjunctiva of eye. X-ray shows fracture of fibula. It is evident that there was one grievous injury i.e., fracture of fibula and other simple injuries. Of course the petitioner has not produced the medical records to show that he was inpatient for a period of 8 days and treatment taken. But admittedly he has sustained fracture and other injuries. Definitely he requires some treatment, might be for a short period.

¶44

But looking in to the nature of injuries, number of injuries and period of accident, I am not inclined to

¶45

¶46

interfere with the sum of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘Pain and Suffering’ and ‘Mental Agony’. Of course when there is fracture, the injured person is required to take rest at least for a minimum period of 3 months and during that period, he will definitely suffer loss of earning. He requires periodical follow-up treatment and he is required to visit the Doctor at hospital. Considering these aspects the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,605/- under the head Medical Expenses, Treatment, Conveyance, etc., which is minimum that is awarded.

¶47

As far as disability is concerned, it is evident that petitioner was aged about 50 years and he was doing coolie work and agricultural work. It is stated that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. May be he is not having records and there will not be any records for coolie work and agricultural work. However, he has examined Orthopedic surgeon by

¶48

¶49

name Dr.M.Rajashekar. Though the Doctor has stated the disability at 35% related to particular part of the body, the Tribunal has globally awarded sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of Loss of future income, future prospects and unhappiness. Definitely when a person sustained fracture though it is stated that the fracture is united, but he will suffer that inconvenience and unhappiness throughout his life. Therefore, considering the nature of the injury, the medical evidence, claimant’s income and expenses, a sum of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of disability, loss of future income, loss of future prospects and unhappiness needs no interference. Since no other ground is urged, in view of the material placed on record, in my considered view, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is liable to be dismissed without admission.

¶50

¶51

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is dismissed .

¶54

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal immediately for disbursement to the claimant as per the order passed by the Tribunal along with records, if any.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Karnataka State Road v. Thirupathi Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. Thirupathi Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandregowda Vs P. Kaliyappan

Cholamandalam M S General Vs N Bhagya

Mr.Sushir Kumar Vs Mr.B.Jinendra

Sri K Armugam Vs the Managing Director

Sri Ningegowda Vs Mohankumar D

Sri. Padmanabha Vs Narasimha Reddy D