Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Puttaswamy

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022MFA/9169/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka in this Motor Vehicles appeal allowed the appeal partially. While upholding liability on the appellant KSRTC for rash and negligent driving, the Court modified the Tribunal award, reducing compensation by removing future loss of income (as the respondent was employed) but enhancing compensation for disappointment and discomfort, and adjusting the interest rate to 6%.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award is modified by reducing the compensation to Rs.3,55,385/- with interest at 6% per annum.

The Divisional Controller Vs Puttaswamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.9169/2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., (RAJAHAMSA NO.KA.09.F.4804) MYSURU RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD BENGALURU-560 027.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

PUTTASWAMY S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BEHIND HOTEL PARAMPARE MYSURU-BENGALURU MAIN ROAD SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI P.S.DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1279/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,40,180/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶14

¶15

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-KSRTC., and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶19

This appeal is filed by the appellant-KSRTC.,

¶20

challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.1279/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge MACT., Srirangapatna (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation.

¶21

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶23

the Tribunal is that on 15.08.2014 at about 7:15 a.m, on Mysuru

¶24

¶25

– Bengaluru road, in front of Parampare Hotel, at Srirangapatna, when he was proceeding in a bike and stood by the side of road divider with an intention to cross the road by that time the driver of the KSRTC., bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner’s bike, thereby resulting in an accident. Immediately, the injured was taken to the hospital and he was an inpatient for a period of five days.

¶26

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and another witness as P.W.3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P102. The claimant relied upon the document – Exs.P6 and P7 – Wound Certificates and also produced the Salary Certificate-Ex.P9 that he was working as Manager in APMC., and also produced the 52 medical bills in Exs.P11 to 62. On the other hand, the respondent also examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2. The defense of the appellant that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. In spite of the evidence adduced by the KSRTC., examined RWs.1 and 2 and also the documents Exs.R1 to R16. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the KSRTC.

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the appellantKSRTC., would vehemently contend that the compensation awarded is on higher side. The learned counsel also would submit that the injured has continued his job. In spite of continuation of his job, the Tribunal awarded compensation on the head of future loss of income, the same is an error committed by the Tribunal.

¶29

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus did not stop the vehicle when the injured was lying after KSRTC., bus hit the motorcycle, at that time, the driver of the Car, who noticed the accident and the injured lying on the road, he lost the control and hit the road divider. The very contention that the bus was not involved in the accident cannot be accepted.

¶30

In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-KSRTC., would contend that in spite of the documents are produced, particularly, Ex.R1 discloses that the

¶31

¶32

bus was started at 7:13 a.m. and the accident was occurred in between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m, the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. So also Ex.R6, the correspondence letter between ambulance and the informer, wherein, the time is mentioned as 7:08 a.m. Both the documents are not relied upon by the Tribunal. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶33

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is the case of the claimant that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the KSRTC., bus and the claimant was standing in between the road divider in order to cross the road, the bus came and hit the motorcycle and when he was lying on the spot, the Car came and hit the road divider. The contention of the claimant is supported by the documentary evidence viz., the IMV report, which also discloses the damage caused to the Car. The very contention of the KSRTC., is that the bus not hit the claimant and already there was an accident when the bus reached the spot and a false complaint was given. Based on the complaint, the Police have registered a case. The KSRTC., examined the driver and the Conductor as RWs.1 and 2.

¶34

¶35

It is the contention of the KSRTC., that the bus was not involved in the accident and also it is emerged in the evidence that there were 29 passengers in the bus. Except the self interested witnesses evidence of RW.1 and RW.2, no independent witnesses are examined and at least ought to have examined the passengers of the bus in order to prove the contention that no accident was taken place.

¶36

It is the contention that the complaint was given to the Police; the Police have not registered a case. The KSRTC., has not proved the contention that what made the Police having grudge against the driver of the KSRTC., bus to register the case against the bus, when the bus was not involved in the accident, the same is also not explained and ought to have examined the Investigating Officer with regard to registration of the case and investigation of the matter regarding filing of the charge-sheet. Admittedly, R.W.1 categorically admits that when the chargesheet is filed against him and the same is not challenged. When such being the material on record, it is not a case to reverse the finding of the Tribunal in order to come to the conclusion that the bus was not involved in the accident. Hence, I do not find

¶37

¶38

any force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- KSRTC.,

¶39

Now coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the injured has sustained three fractures and he was an inpatient for a period of five days. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- on the head of Pain, Shock and agony. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs.80,000/- on this head.

¶40

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,39,870/- towards medical expenses, which is based on the documentary evidence. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶41

The claimant was an inpatient for a period of five days. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- towards food and nourishment, attendant, conveyance and traveling charges, which is not exorbitant.

¶42

¶43

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶44

Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is just and proper and does not require any interference.

¶45

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.29,709/- towards loss of income during the treatment period for a period of three months, which is on lesser side, the same is taken for five months, it comes to Rs.49,515/- (9903x5).

¶46

Further, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.2,24,600/- towards permanent physical disablement. When the claimant is an employee of APMC., and continued the job, the question of awarding compensation on the head of permanent physical disablement does not arise.

¶47

However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the head of disappointment, discomfort, frustration and loss of amenities. Having considered the nature of injuries and considered the whole body disability of 21%, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-.

¶48

¶49

With regard to the interest portion is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellantKSRTC., is that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest, which is on higher side. The accident was occurred in the year 2015 and the judgment was passed on 31.07.2017. In view of the prevailing rate of interest in the Nationalised bank, the same is reduced to 6% p.a.

¶50

In the circumstances, the claimant is entitled for the reduced compensation of Rs.3,55,385/- as against Rs.5,40,180/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment of the entire amount.

¶51

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶55

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.1279/2015, is modified reducing the compensation to Rs.3,55,385/- as against Rs.5,40,180/- with interest at 6% per annum

¶56

¶57

from the date of petition till payment of the entire amount.

¶58

(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith..

¶59

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

cp*

The Divisional Controller v. Puttaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Puttaswamy

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

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal

The Managing Director Vs B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

Mr. B.K.Ashraf Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Vs Annapoornamma