Allowed

Smt. Kempamma v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022MFA/4190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal order. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of future income, loss of income during the laid-up period, and loss of amenities following a road traffic accident caused by rash driving of the respondent's bus.

What did the court decide?

Award of total compensation of Rs. 307,800 to be deposited by the respondent along with 6% interest.

Smt. Kempamma Vs Managing Director, Karnataka State… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

MFA No.4190 OF 2021(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MADARASABARADODDI HARISANDARA AND KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 128.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANAGING DIRECTOR K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560 027

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. RADHA B P., ADV.)

¶14

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.04.06.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.237/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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 and decree dated 4.6.2021 passed by Addl. MACT and II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in MVC 237/2017.

¶19

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 19.4.2017 when the claimant boarded the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42-F-0742 to reach her village

¶20

Madarasabaradoddi, at that time, the driver of the

¶21

¶22

said bus drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake. 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 she 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

¶27

¶28

recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Madhusudhan was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P44. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no document was produced. 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.87,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was doing agricultural, sericultural and dairy farming work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶32

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to whole body. There is loss of income due to the disability. But the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income'.

¶33

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

¶34

¶35

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶36

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

¶37

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, she has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶38

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to whole body. The injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. The shoulder joint resulting in partial temporary disability is reversible. There is no permanent disability and there is no loss of income due to the disability. Hence, the Tribunal

¶39

¶40

has rightly not awarded any compensation for 'loss of future income'.

¶41

Thirdly, 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 compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶43

and perused the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶45

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

¶46

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She has not produced any documents to prove her income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the

¶47

¶48

guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶49

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of left clavicle bone. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to whole body. Due to the injuries sustained and disability suffered by the claimant, there is loss of income. Hence, the claimant is entitled for 'loss of future income'. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole body disability can be taken at 10%. The claimant is aged about 44 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘14’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation

¶50

¶51

of Rs.184,800/- (Rs.11,0001214*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶52

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’.

¶53

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 6 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/to Rs.30,000/-.

¶54

¶55

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶56

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

¶57

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶58

following compensation:

¶59

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	25,000	25,000
Medical and incidental	35,000	35,000
expenses
Loss of income during	7,000	33,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	20,000	30,000
Loss of future income	0	184,800
Total	87,000	307,800

¶60

In the result, the appeal is allowed in

¶61

part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶62

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

¶63

of Rs.307,800/-.

¶64

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the

¶65

compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶66

¶67

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the

¶68

date of receipt of copy of this judgment .

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Smt. Kempamma v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kempamma v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahabala Poojary

Smt Shaha Taj Vs Sri Mahadeva

Murthy @ M S Murthy Vs Avinash H a

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary Vs Sri Vijaya Kharvi

Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty Vs Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat

Sri Punith Kumar D M Vs Sri Chandre Gowda K S