Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Darshan S

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2023MFA/4774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allows the claimant's appeal in part against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,86,359 to Rs. 6,77,159/- to include higher amounts for future earnings and specific heads of loss, while dismissing the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,77,159/- with interest at 6% p.a.; KSRTC directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

The Managing Director Vs Darshan S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4774 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4357 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶10

IN M.F.A. NO. 4774 OF 2019

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE BHAVANA, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI N KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DARSHAN S, S/O. SIDDARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/AT: ATTUR LAYOUT, NO.502, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2613/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-23], AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,86,359/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶22

IN M.F.A. NO. 4357 OF 2019

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI DARSHAN S, S/O. SIDDARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/AT : ATTUR LAYOUT, NO. 502, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶25

...APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI N KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.2.19 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2613/18 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACCT, BENGALURU [SCCH-23], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in both the appeals.

¶37

These appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed by the learned XXI Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru in MVC.No.2613/2018 dated 16.02.2019.

¶38

MFA.No.4774/2019 is filed by the KSRTC disputing the quantum of compensation. MFA.No.4357/2019 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that on 07.02.2018 at about 06.00 pm, near Belimat Engineering College, Nelamanaga, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-1122 drove the same in negligent manner and dashed against two wheeler where the petitioner was a pillion rider. It is contended that the petitioner had sustained injuries as below:

¶40

i. Type III 'B' open (Compound) fracture both bones (Tibia and Fibula) of right leg with degloving injury of calf muscles. There was contamination with dirt and grease.

¶41

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶42

Therefore, the petitioner shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and a case was registered against the KSRTC bus driver. The petitioner contended that he was studying B.E. 3^rd Year and due to the injury, he has lost his studies and he has become permanently disabled and therefore, adequate compensation be awarded to him.

¶43

On issuance of notice, the respondent-KSRTC appeared through its counsel and opposed the claim on the ground that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It was also contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties to the petition.

¶44

Appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1.

¶45

After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the

¶46

Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as below:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶49

PARTICULARS		AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and sufferings		40,000/-
Loss of future earnings		2,59,200/-
Medical expenses		92,159/-
Conveyance, nourishment nutritious food	and	30,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects		20,000/-
Loss of amenities of life		20,000/-
Future medical expenses		25,000/-
TOTAL		4,86,359/-

¶50

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner has approached this Court for enhancement and

¶51

the respondent-KSRTC has approached this Court in appeal contending that the compensation awarded to the petitioner is exorbitant.

¶52

On issuance of notice, the rival parties have appeared through their counsel in the appeals and the Tribunal records have been secured.

¶53

The fact that there was an accident between the motorcycle wherein, the petitioner was pillion rider and the bus belonging to the respondent is not in dispute. Though a feeble attempt is made by the learned counsel for the respondentKSRTC that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶56

necessary parties, the petitioner being the pillion rider of the motorcycle, is at liberty to go against any one of the tortfeaser. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is a case of the composite negligence and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle also is not of any help to him.

¶57

The records reveal that the petitioner was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and he was studying in B.E. 3^rd Year. He has suffered type III open compound fracture of both the bones of right leg and had to undergo surgery with external fixator, wound debridement etc. He was inpatient for a period of 36 days and the fractures were treated with ORIF. The petitioner was evaluated by PW.2 regarding disability and he has stated that there is a disability of 37.74% in the right lower limb and it account for 17.87% disability to the whole body.

¶58

Learned counsel fro the petitioner contends that the said disability results in functional disability of the petitioner in his future life and therefore, it should have been taken at a

¶59

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶60

higher value. The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner was a student of engineering and he had not yet completed the course. The academic qualifications and performance of the petitioner is not available on record. So also, other performance in respect of extra curricular activities and sports activities by the petitioner are also not available on record.

¶61

Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to hold that there is any reason to believe that he was extraordinary student studying in B.E. and the injuries suffered by him would drastically affect his future earning capacity. The Tribunal has taken disability of the petitioner at 15% and the same is adequate and proper.

¶62

So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.8,000/- and has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- under the head of 'loss of future earnings'. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.12,500/- for the year 2018. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶64

¶65

Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the deceased is considered at Rs.12,500/- per month. Therefore, the compensation under the head of 'loss of future income' is calculated as Rs.12,500/- X 12 X 18 X 15% = Rs.4,05,000/-.

¶66

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/under the head of 'pain and suffering'. There being two fractures to the right lower limb and he being an inpatient for 36 days, the compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering' needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

¶67

Considering the period of inpatient treatment, the compensation under the head of 'food, nourishment and conveyance etc' is also enhanced to Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-.

¶68

So far as the 'loss of amenities in life' is concerned, it is evident that the petitioner was a student and his future career is not known, the imponderables of the future of the petitioner are put to certain discomforts. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'. Moreover, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of marriage prospects' takes care of amenities also.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶71

A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 discloses that there is partial union of the tibia and it needs correction and also there is a need for removal of the implants, further, he has stated proximal locking bolt in tibia is broken. Considering these aspects, the 'future medical expenses' also needs an enhancement and therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

¶72

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses' is adequate and hence, no enhancement is required.

¶73

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶74

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000/-
Loss of future earnings	4,05,000/-
Medical expenses	92,159/-
Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	40,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects	20,000/-
Loss of amenities of life	30,000/-
Future medical expenses	40,000/-
TOTAL	6,77,159/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	4,86,359/-
Enhancement	1,90,800/-

¶75

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:26306 MFA No. 4774 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 4357 of 2019

¶76

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,90,800/- with interest and therefore, the appeal by claimant deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(i) The appeal filed by the claimant i.e., MFA.No.4357/2019 is allowed in part. The appeal filed by the KSRTC i.e., MFA.No.4774/2019 is dismissed.

¶79

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,90,800/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶80

(iii) KSRTC is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶81

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶82

(v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

NR/-

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80

The Managing Director v. Darshan S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Darshan S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H S Veerabhadraiah Vs Hanumanthappa

Jayanna B B Vs Mukthar Pasha

The Legal Manager Vs Chikkamuniswamy

Rahul a Vs Harshith a S

Mr a Ramanath Vs Smt Prema N

Smt Rajeshwari M Vs Mr a Zakeer Hussain