Partly allowed

Sri Umesh v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022MFA/1255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed to enhance compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a road accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's award by reassessing notional income to Rs.11,000 and whole body disability to 15%, enhancing total compensation to Rs.614,600.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.614,600 including interest; KSRTC directed to deposit the amount.

Sri Umesh Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

MFA No1255 OF 2021(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI UMESH S/O. GAVIGOWDA R/AT BALLAPATNA VILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE 560027

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJ, ADV.)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.177/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING

¶15

¶16

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed by MACT, Channaptna in MVC 177/2017.

¶20

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.3.2017 when the claimant was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11-F-0313 from BangaloreMandya-Madikeri from Satellite bus stand to go to Channapatna, near Archakarahalli, Ramanagara, at that time, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, jumped the humps and the claimant was thrown from the seat and fell down.

¶21

¶22

As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶23

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶24

On service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶25

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶26

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Manju Jayaram was

¶27

¶28

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.413,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶29

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶30

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing business and earning Rs.20,000/- per

¶31

¶32

month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶33

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% with respect to spine. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 10%, which is on the lower side.

¶34

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Further, PW-2 the doctor has stated that the claimant requires an amount of Rs.70,000/- to undergo surgery

¶35

¶36

for removal of implants. But the Tribunal has granted meager compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'future medical expenses'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the KSRTC has raised following counter contentions:

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶39

Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10%.

¶40

Thirdly, the claimant has not produced any documents either before the Tribunal or before this court with regard to future treatment taken. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded

¶41

¶42

Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶43

Fourthly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶45

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶47

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶48

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the

¶49

¶50

absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶51

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pain in the lumbo-sacral spine region, swelling and deformity and compression of lumbar vertebra and surgery was conducted for posterior spinal decompression. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to spine. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the

¶52

wound certificate, the whole body disability can be taken at 15%. The claimant is aged about 30 years at

¶53

the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to

¶54

his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.336,600/-

¶55

¶56

(Rs.11,0001217*15%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶57

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶58

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 15 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of 'medical and incidental expenses' from Rs.115,000/to Rs.125,000/-.

¶59

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am

¶60

¶61

inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶62

The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant requires about Rs.70,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’. The claimant has neither produced any estimation for the surgery nor produced any documents before this court for surgery undergone. Therefore, compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' just and reasonable.

¶63

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶64

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶65

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶66

¶67

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical and incidental expenses	115,000	125,000
Loss of income during laid up period	25,500	33,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	173,400	336,600
Future medical expenses	30,000	30,000
Total	413,900	614,600

¶68

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶69

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.614,600/-.

¶70

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶71

¶72

The Tribunal is directed to release the

¶73

compensation amount in favour of the claimant after due verification.

¶74

The registry is directed to return the original records to the Tribunal.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Sri Umesh v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Venkatesh

Mahadevaswamy Vs Ananda

Sri Mahesh C S Vs Sri Pavan G R

Nanjappa Vs Vijayakumar

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Smt C P Vanaja

Mukunda Vs Kumara