Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Smt Sudha K

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023MFA/5923/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appealed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award granting compensation for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. The bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings on bus involvement despite alleged procedural delays and confirming the compensation amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed and the impugned judgment and award dated 30-01-2018 by the Tribunal confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Smt Sudha K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5923 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027. NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI NAGARAJA K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT. SUDHA K, W/O HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O KALLANAYAKANAHALLI, HUTRI DURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/01/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.140/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-XV, KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF 2,26,120/-, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal by the respondent-KSRTC is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.140/2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Kunigal, dated 30-01-2018, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,26,120/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident.

¶21

The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that on 8-5-2013 at about 7.40 p.m. while she was proceeding as a pillion rider with her husband Honnegowda from Kunigal towards Anchepalya near Bidanagere on the tank bund, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.13.F.1837 came from Bengaluru side and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, the petitioner and her husband fell down and sustained the injuries and they were shifted to CHC, Kunigal. After the

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶23

first aid, they were shifted to NIMHANS for further treatment and petitioner took treatment from 8-5-2013 to 21-5-2013. It was contended that the petitioner was aged 21 years and was earning Rs.500/- per day by doing flower business and due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered permanent disability. It was contended that the police have registered a case against the bus driver in Crime No.173/2014. Therefore, the petitioner be awarded adequate compensation from respondent-KSRTC.

¶24

On issuance of notice, respondent-KSRTC appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and there was no such involvement of the bus. It was contended that the Kunigal police under influence of the petitioner and others got registered a false case against the bus driver even though there was no fault on his behalf. Therefore, it has contended that the respondent-KSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and even the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶27

compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly

¶28

excessive, imaginary and untenable in law.

¶29

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor was examined as PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. The driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW1.

¶30

After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the

¶31

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,120/- under the

¶32

different heads as below:

¶33

For pain and sufferings	Rs. 25,000/-
Towards loss of earnings	Rs. 1,55,520/-
Towards medical expenses	Rs. 21,000/-
Laid up period (Rs.6,000/- x 2=Rs.12,000/-	Rs. 12,000/-
Towards attendant charges(Rs.200 x 13 days)	Rs. 2,600/-
Towards transportation and special diet	Rs. 10,000/-
Total	Rs.2,26,120/-

¶34

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent-KSRTC is before this Court in appeal.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶36

The appellant-KSRTC contends that the accident allegedly occurred on 8-5-2013 and the complaint was filed on 21-5-2013 and there was a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint. It was contended that MLC extract showed that there is a mention of the presence of the police constable and the history of the accident is not recorded properly. It is contended that there is no mention of the presence of the KSRTC bus or the involvement of the bus and therefore, the Tribunal has totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to

¶37

the involvement of the KSRTC bus.

¶38

On issuance of notice, the respondent herein, who

¶39

is the petitioner did not appear before this Court despite proper service of notice.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel Sri K. Nagaraja, appearing for appellant-KSRTC. The Tribunal records have been secured and perused.

¶41

During the course of arguments, it was felt necessary that MLC records have to be obtained from the

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶43

concerned hospital and as such, a direction was issued to the said effect. Obeying the order passed by this Court, the concerned authorities of the Kunigal Hospital have furnished the copies of MLC Register Extract. Thus, the arguments by learned counsel for appellant-KSRTC were heard and available evidence on record is perused.

¶44

The learned counsel for appellant-KSRTC K. Nagaraja, vehemently contended that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the complaint and the husband of the petitioner though it is stated that he had also fallen down from the bike had not sustained any injury and therefore, he could have filed the complaint against the bus driver if at all, the bus was involved in the accident. It is contended that the police constable was present at the hospital as may be seen from the MLC extract and therefore, there is no impediment to lodge the complaint immediately after the accident. He further argues that summary issued by the command Hospital also do not mention the involvement of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, the

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶46

Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the bus belonging to the appellant-KSRTC was involved in the accident. It is further contended that no eye witnesses have been examined and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unjust and the same deserves to be set aside and petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶47

I have gone through the evidence available on

¶48

record as well as the copy of the MLC extract, which was secured by this Court. The perusal of the complaint discloses that when the petitioner and her husband were going on the motor cycle on the left side of the road at about 7.40 p.m. the bus came from Bengaluru towards Kunigal in a rash and negligent manner and in an effort to overtake another vehicle, it came on the extreme right side and dashed against the rider of motor cycle. The complainant as well as his wife i.e. petitioner herein fell down and sustained injuries to the head and other parts of the body. The complaint mention that one Yogesh and the complainant shifted the petitioner in some car to the

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶50

Kunigal hospital and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, she was shifted to NIMHANS Bengaluru. The complaint mention that the complainant remained with his wife at the hospital and therefore, there is delay in filing the complaint. Obviously, the perusal of the complaint gives a meaning that major injuries were sustained by the petitioner and her husband had not sustained such severe injuries. Now the question is, is there any adequate explanation by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint?

¶51

The perusal of the MLC register extract show that at about 8.10 p.m. Honnegowda, aged 21 years brought to the Kunigal Government hospital with a history of road traffic accident and he was riding the two wheeler which had been hit by the KSRTC bus near Bidnagere at 7.40 p.m. It is also mentioned that the patient was conscious and oriented and he had injuries on the right supraorbital region with bleeding and grazed abrasion. It was mentioned in the Register that X ray of the skull was taken

¶52

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶53

and surgery reference was made and the patient was shifted to NIMHANS as per his request. Similarly, below the entry of the said Honnegowda, the entry regarding the petitioner is mentioned and the history is same one, but it was mentioned that she was unconscious and disoriented. Fracture of frontal bone was suspected and she was also shifted to NIMHANS. Thus, it is evident that petitioner as well as her husband sustained injuries in the said accident and they were shifted to NIMHANS. There is no such mention that police constable was present when they were taken to Kunigal Hospital. There is an entry that the Police constable has received the copy of the MLC register extract, but the date is not mentioned. It appears that the learned counsel for the appellant has misconstrued the acknowledgement of the receipt of the MLC register copy by the police constable to be his presence at the time when the patient was brought to the hospital.

¶54

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶55

Thus, the careful perusal of the above records show that there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any room for manipulation and insertion of the bus belonging to the appellant at subsequent date. The MLC register records clearly mention that the accident occurred involving the KSRTC bus. Under these circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the bus was not at all involved in the accident.

¶56

It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was unconscious when she was brought to the hospital and obviously, she was accompanied by her husband Honnegowda and both of them have been shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru. The MLC register extract show that Honnegowda was injured in the accident and he had also sustained head injury. Therefore, the say of the petitioner and that of her husband as mentioned in the complaint that there was delay in filing the complaint on account of the complainant being with the injured at

¶57

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶58

NIMHANS appears to be proper, correct and acceptable. However, it is necessary to note that after the completion of the investigation, the police have filed the chargesheet against the bus driver. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the involvement of the bus in the accident is doubtful and therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition cannot be accepted.

¶59

The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is in respect of the rate of interest. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,26,120/- along with interest at 9% p.a. It is worth to note that though the Tribunal has not mentioned the reason as to why it has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% p.a., it is obviously on the basis of several decisions of various High Courts which have laid down that the rate of interest shall be 9% p.a. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable grounds in order to reduce the rate of interest and in the absence of any material to show that

¶60

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶61

the conclusions reached by the Tribunal were erroneous, such a plea by the appellant cannot be accepted. It is trite law that the Appellate Court would not interfere in the judgment of the Trial Court simply because another view is possible. The Tribunal has exercised its power diligently and it has awarded interest at 9% p.a. In the absence of any proper reasoning by the counsel for the appellant in respect of the rate of interest, this Court cannot interfere with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal.

¶62

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are also adequate, just, proper and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is required in the same. Consequently, the appeal is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The appeal filed by the appellant- KSRTC is

¶65

dismissed.

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:25063 MFA No. 5923 of 2018

¶67

13 -

¶68

The impugned judgment and award dated

¶69

30-01-2018 in MVC No.140/2014 passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶70

No orders as to costs.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97

The Managing Director v. Smt Sudha K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt Sudha K

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

Smt.Mangamma Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. Vs Sri B v Nithinkumar

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar Vs Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

Mr Mohammad B Vs Mr Abdul Faruq

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Krishna

The Division Controller Ksrtc Vs Sonnappa