Partly allowed

Venkatesh B v. Basavaraj

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2022MFA/5483/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a motor vehicle accident victim. The Court allowed the appeal in part, increasing compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, and loss of income, while keeping medical expenses unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs. 54,000 to Rs. 1,36,400 with interest at 6% p.a.; Respondent No.3 directed to deposit the amount.

Venkatesh B Vs Basavaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5483/2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENKATESH B, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.631, SOG COLONY, A BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. K.N.NARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKHAR.K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BASAVARAJ, S/O NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, KSRTC MUDIGERE DEPOT, DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING REG NO.KA.18.F-450 R/O CHIKKAMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALUR TQ & DIST

¶13

THE DEPOT MANAGER MUDIGERE DEPOT, MUDIGERE – 577 132 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KSRTC,

¶15

¶16

CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, PIN-577 101

¶17

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; V/O/DTD 15.09.2018, R1 NOTICE D/W)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SUITABLY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION BY AWARDING THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.349/2014 BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VI MACT AT DAVANAGERE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This is petitioner’s appeal for enhancement.

¶22

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that he is driver by profession. On 19.10.2013, he was proceeding towards Davanagere from Raichur on State Highway-25 in his lorry bearing Registration No.KA-17/B-662. At around 11.15 a.m, he reached Hanchinal Hagari cross. Respondent No.1 being the

¶24

¶25

driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-18/F-450 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) drove the same in rash or negligent manner and tried to overtake the lorry. While overtaking the lorry, he dashed the bus on the back portion of the lorry. As a result of it, lorry turned upside down. Petitioner sustained severe injuries.

¶26

It is further case of the petitioner that after first aid at the Government Hospital, Hagarinommanahalli, he was shifted to SSMS Hospital, Davanagere. He took treatment as inpatient from 19.10.2013 to 28.10.2013. He has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for the treatment. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. After the accident he is unable to pursue his job. In respect of the accident he has lodged the complaint against the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶27

Respondent No.1 remained Ex-parte.

¶28

¶29

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed written statement denying that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of offending vehicle by the Respondent No.1. They have also denied the nature of the injuries, expenses incurred for the treatment as well as the income of the petitioner.

¶30

Based on the pleadings Tribunal has framed issues.

¶31

In support of his case petitioner has examined

¶32

himself as PW-1 and got marked from EX-P1 to 16. The Respondent No.1 is examined as RW-1. No documents are marked on behalf respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶33

Vide the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal

¶34

has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.54,000/- as detailed below:

¶35

Heads	Amount In Rs.
Pain & sufferings	5,000
Discomfort & loss of amenities of life	5,000
Medical expenses	42,362
Other charges	1,000
TOTAL	53,362 Round up to54,000

¶36

¶37

Respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶38

Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and award contending that the compensation granted on all the heads is highly insufficient and disproportionate. The Tribunal has not at all taken into consideration the documents placed on record especially the medical documents, which goes to show that he suffered fracture and took treatment as in-patient. He has also undergone surgery. The Tribunal ought have granted compensation under the head loss of future earnings and prays to allow the appeal.

¶39

Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the

¶40

records.

¶41

The learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that during his cross examination PW-1 has admitted that he sustained injury due to fall from the lorry and the said fact is also forthcoming from the medical records and consequently the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference.

¶42

¶43

It is pertinent to note that based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. Admittedly respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award especially with regard to the said findings and as such it has attained finality. During the course of his cross examination PW-1 i.e., petitioner has admitted that while he was sitting on the top of the lorry, when the bus overtook the lorry he fell down and sustained injury.

¶44

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disputed that at the time of accident, petitioner was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/B-662 which is the other vehicle involved in the accident in addition to the offending vehicle. It is not the case of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that somebody else was driving the lorry and petitioner was sitting on the top of the lorry.

¶45

¶46

Consequently the admission given by the petitioner is not of much consequence. It cannot be termed as an admission. What is meant by he saying that he was on the top of the lorry is that he was driving the lorry and after the impact by the bus he fell down. In fact he has denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that he fell down from the top of the lorry and as such respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are not liable to pay the compensation. During the course of the judgment, the Tribunal has clearly observed that if the offending vehicle has just overtook the lorry and gone ahead the accident would not have occurred. As evident from the investigation papers, necessarily the offending vehicle has dashed against the lorry as a result of which the lorry has steered on the left side and went into the adjacent land and turned turtle. The persons who were working in the land removed the petitioner from the cabin and he was shifted to the hospital in 108 ambulance.

¶47

Therefore, the so called admission of PW-1 is not an admission. What the petitioner meant by having fallen from the top of the lorry means while driving the lorry he fell on account

¶48

¶49

of the lorry turning turtle and sustained the injuries. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 & 3 cannot take advantage of the said admission. The Tribunal should have got a clarification from the petitioner as to what he meant by having fallen from the top of the lorry. When the petitioner himself was driving the lorry, question of he sitting outside - that too on the top of the lorry does not arise. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that petitioner sustained injuries on account of the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 is correct and does not call for any interference, especially when respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶50

Now coming to the question whether compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads is just and reasonable, especially in the light of the nature of the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner.

¶51

Pain and suffering: As evident from Ex-P7 petitioner has sustained fracture of first rib as well as fracture of proximal part of the first meta carpal bone of the right side. These

¶52

¶53

injuries are described as grievous in nature. Admittedly petitioner has undergone surgery under local anesthesia. As evident from the medical bills, he has spent Rs.42,362/- towards medical expenses. He was inpatient till 31.10.2013. Taking into consideration these aspects the grant of compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and suffering is too low. Having regarding to the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment, I hold that petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering as against Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶54

Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head discomfort and loss of amenities in life. As noted earlier, the petitioner has sustained two fractures and he was inpatient for 9 days. He has spent Rs.42,362/- towards medical expenses. Taking into consideration these aspects, I hold that petitioner is entitled for compensation in sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life as against Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶55

¶56

Medical expenses: Based on the documents produced by the petitioner, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.42,362/-. The same is just and proper and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

¶57

Attendant charges and other expenses: Under this head the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,000/- which is highly inadequate and insufficient. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, period of treatment and also the expenses incurred by the petitioner for medical treatment, I hold that granting compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

¶58

Compensation for the laid up period: The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under this head. Admittedly the petitioner has sustained two fractures namely fracture of the rib as well as the meta carpal bone. He was in-patient for 9 days and had spent considerable amount for treatment. Taking into consideration these aspects, I hold that he would have prevented form doing his job for at least period of two months. Since the accident is of the year 2013, in the absence of

¶59

¶60

evidence to show his actual income, based on the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart which is based on minimum wages, the notional income is required to be taken at Rs.8,000/p.m. For a period of two months petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.16,000/- under the head laid of period.

¶61

Thus in all petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,36,362/- which is rounded of Rs.1,36,400/- as

¶62

detailed below:

¶63

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Pain & sufferings	5,000	40,000
Loss of amenities of life	5,000	30,000
Medical expenses	42,362	42,362
Attendant & other charges	1,000	10,000
Income during laid up period	-	16,000
TOTAL	53,362 Round up to54,000	1,36,362 Round up to1,36,400

¶64

¶65

The Tribunal has granted interest at 8% per annum without any basis. Therefore it is confined to 6% and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,36,400/- together with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.54,000/- from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited).

¶69

iii) Respondent No.3 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period six weeks from the date of this order.

¶70

iv) Registry shall transmit the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment forthwith.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Venkatesh B v. Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh B v. Basavaraj

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

Sri Bheemanna Vs Sri Hullurappa H

Jagadish R Vs S. Sundar

Sri R Chinnaswamy Vs Sri Umesh Hydal

The Managing Director Vs Sri Raghugowda v

Sri Manjunatha Vs the Principal

Raghugowda v Vs the Managing Director