Partly allowed

Mr. Ibrahim v. the Manaing Director

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023MFA/4239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a claimant injured in a bus accident. The Court allowed the appeal in part, increasing the compensation amount and reducing the claimant's share of contributory negligence from 25% to 20%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,92,200/-, claimant to receive 80% (Rs.1,53,760/-) from respondent, amount to carry interest at 6% p.a.

Mr. Ibrahim Vs the Manaing Director — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2019

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. IBRAHIM, S/O HAMMABBA, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDIRANAGAR, BOLLUR, HALEYANGADI POST, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN - 577007.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

THE MANAING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALORE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MANGALURU DIVISION, LALBHAG, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT. PIN - 575001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶17

(BY SMT.S.NIRMALA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19/09/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.585/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, D.K. MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by

¶22

the award passed in M.V.C. No.585/2015, dated 19^th September 2018 by the IV Addl. District Judge, Mangaluru. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶23

According to the claimant on 11.06.2014 when he

¶24

was traveling as a fare paid passenger in a bus from Mangalore to Thokkotu the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned the bus to the left side, due to which, the petitioner who

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶26

was standing inside the bus, was thrown out from the bus on to the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.

¶27

KSRTC filed the written statement denying the same stating that the claimant was traveling on a footpath because of his negligence, the accident had taken place and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶28

The Court below while considering this aspect has observed that the spot sketch Ex.P5 show that the spot of the accident is a straight road and the width of the road is 22 inch on each side which shows that the driver of the bus was driving in a straight road. In such circumstances, the version of PW.1 that the bus suddenly turned to left side negligently and he was thrown out from the bus, cannot be accepted. Though the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus, the criminal case is closed on

¶29

the ground that the passenger had committed the mistake even though no documents were produced. Accordingly,

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶31

the Court below has come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as well and apportioned the same at 25% on the passenger and 75% on the driver of the bus. When it comes to the compensation as per the wound certificate the claimant has sustained lacerated wound over the left upper eye lid, black eye with sub conjunctival haemorrhage on left side, fracture of left lateral orbital wall, lateral wall of left maxilla and left zygomatic arch (facial bones), cerebral oedema with sub arachanoid haemorrhage over the left temporal lobe of brain. As per the doctor, injuries 3 & 4 are grievous in nature. Under the head of pain and suffering , the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/-. When it comes to the loss of income, it is the case of the claimant that he was earning Rs.12,000/per month. The Court had considered Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income. Under the head of loss of

¶32

income during the laid up period, granted an amount of Rs.7,500/-. When it comes to the loss of future income as per the evidence of the doctor PW.2, the claimant had

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶34

sustained 18.6% disability to the whole body due to head injury, but the Court by analyzing the evidence of PW.2 has observed that he was not a treated doctor and has not taken CT scan. The doctor has admitted that the discharge summery reveals the fact that the future treatment is not required by the claimant as he had not undergone any surgery, but only the implant was put on the cheek bone, and it is united. He had not noticed any damage to the optic nerve and the discharge summary does not disclose any defective vision during the treatment. He has also

¶35

admitted that there is an eye defect in the vision and ophthalmologist is the best person to give certificate. The Court below considering this evidence of the doctor has held that he is not a treated doctor and whatever he had mentioned is contrary to the treatment given earlier or to the discharge summery and not considered the disability. When coming to the loss of amenities in life, as the claimant was suffering with headache and granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-, towards medical Expenses an amount of Rs.31,700/-, future medical expenses an

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶37

amount of Rs.15,000/-, towards attendant, food and nourishment charges granted an amount of Rs.3,000/-. Miscellaneous expenses Rs.2,000/-. Altogether compensation of an amount of Rs.1,14,200/was awarded.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant claimant submits that the Court below had failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctor PW.2, who categorically deposed about the permanent disability sustained by the claimant. He submits that under the other heads also, the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal was not reasonable. He submits that on the aspect of contributory negligence, the Court below without analyzing the evidence has come to the conclusion which is not just and reasonable. He submits that when they say that next to the foot board was seat of the conductor, they have not taken any steps to examine the conductor. He submits that they have failed to prove that the claimant was traveling on the footboard and he had sustained the

¶39

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶40

injury and apportioning the contributory negligence at 25% on the claimant is not just and proper and it is contrary to the evidence on record.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the contributory negligence at 25% and 75% as he was traveling on the foot board and contributed to the accident the criminal records also do justify the same. He submits that the Court below rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 which was not inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court and which is contrary to the other medical record. The learned counsel further submits that no grounds are made out either for enhancement of the compensation or for contributory negligence.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶43

perused the entire material on record. The claimant sustained head injuries and the two injuries are grievous

¶44

in nature. Considering the same, under the head of pain

¶45

and suffering this Court is granting an amount of

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶47

Rs.50,000/-. Then coming to the loss of income during

¶48

the laid up period , this is an accident of the year 2014

¶49

and considering the income of the claimant at 8,500/- per month for a period of three months, This Court is granting an amount of Rs.25,500/-. Then coming to the loss of future income, the doctor had deposed that the claimant had sustained 18.6% disability to the whole body. In the preceding paragraph this Court has analyzed the evidence of Pw.2. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly analyzed the evidence of the doctor

¶50

and rightly not granting any amount under the head of loss of future income due to disability. When it comes to the amenities, considering the head injury sustained by the claimant, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-, towards medical expenses Court below had granted an amount of Rs.31,700/- and no interference is called for. Towards future medical expenses the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Considering that the accident is of the year 2014, this Court is inclined to granting an amount of

¶51

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶52

Rs.20,000 /-. Towards attendant, food and

¶53

nourishment & miscellaneous expenses the Court

¶54

below had granted a meager amount and this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said head.

¶55

Further in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Altogether, the claimant is entitle for an amount of Rs.1,92,200/-.

¶56

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶57

compensation under the following heads:

¶58

	Heads	Com A	pensation warded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	: Rs.	50,000/-
2.	Loss of Earning during laid up period	: Rs.	25,500/-
	(Rs.8,500 x 3 )

¶59

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶60

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶61

3.	Medical Nourishment	: Rs.	31,700/-
4.	Loss of Amenities in life	: Rs.	40,000/-
5.	Future Medical Expenses	: Rs.	20,000/-
6.	Attendant, food and nourishment	: Rs.	15,000/-
7.	Legal Expenses	: Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	: Rs.	1,92,200/-

¶62

Then, coming to the aspect of contributory

¶63

negligence the Court below had apportioned at 25% and 75% on the claimant and driver of KSRTC bus respectively. From the rough sketch and other evidence on record, it cannot be completely said that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant which shows that the claimant had also contributed to the accident, but apportioning the same at 25% is on the higher side. Hence, this Court is apportioning the contributory negligence at 20% on the claimant and 80% on the driver of the KSRTC. Hence, the KSRTC is liable to

¶64

pay an amount of Rs.1,53,760/- i.e., 80% of the compensation amount.

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶67

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and KSRTC is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,760/-.

¶68

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶69

ii) The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶70

iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶71

iv) No costs.

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:47013 MFA No. 4239 of 2019

¶74

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶75

closed.

¶76

SD/JUDGE

¶77

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

Mr. Ibrahim v. the Manaing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ibrahim v. the Manaing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varalakshmi Vs Sameer

M Somashekar Vs S Nasir

Prasanna Vs the Manager

Sri. P Prashanth Vs the Managing Director

Mr. Parveez Ahmed Vs the Managing Director

Sri Shekar B v Vs Sri . Ramakrishnan