Disposed

Shri. Nagaraj S/O Annappa Masti v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024MFA/103134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals by claimant and Corporation against a motor accident award. The High Court confirmed negligence solely on the bus driver, holding absence of a driving licence does not amount to contributory negligence, adjusted notional income per KSLSA guidelines, reduced loss of amenities, and left total compensation undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs.3,91,100/- with 6% p.a. interest upheld; Corporation directed to deposit within six weeks; deposit amounts transferred to Tribunal for disbursement.

Shri. Nagaraj S/O Annappa Masti Vs the Managing… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103134 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102437 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶12

IN MFA NO. 103134 OF 2019

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O. ANNAPPA MASTI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE AND MILK VENDING, NOW NIL, R/O. BASAWAN GALLI, HUDLI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2019 BY

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶25

ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION IN MVC NO.2520/2017 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 102437 OF 2019

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, IN APPEAL REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.

¶29

…APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SHRI. NAGARAJ ANNAPPA MASTI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND MILK VENDING, NOW NIL, R/O. BASAVAN GALLI, HUDLI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.

¶33

…RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2520/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2019 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC.

¶36

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶38

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND

¶39

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶42

1. MFA No.103134/2019 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.102437/2019 is filed by NWKRTC under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988¹ challenging the judgment and award dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned XI Addl. District Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi² in MVC No.2520/2017.

¶43

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated

¶44

are that on 25.09.2017, the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22-EV-8459 from his land towards his house along with his relative as a pillion rider. When they reached near Sunagar Halla on Gokak-Belagavi road, at about 16.00 hours, one KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1911 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle from opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and

¶45

1 ‘Act’ for short

¶46

2 ‘Tribunal’ for short

¶47

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶48

immediately, he was shifted to Lakeview Hospitalm Belagavi, wherein he was an inpatient from 25.09.2017 to 3.10.2017.

¶49

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶50

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent/Corporation appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶51

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,91,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶53

6. Sri. M.K. Soudagar, the learned counsel for the

¶54

Corporation has raised the following contentions:

¶55

NEGLIGENCE

¶56

The accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in the middle of the road, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to right portion of the bus, due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries, as is evident from Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama and Ex.P4 & P5-MVA Reports. But, the Tribunal without considering these aspects of the matter has erred in holding that the driver of the bus alone was negligent in causing the accident. He further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle as well as driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5, 180, 181, 146, 196 of the MV Act. Thus,it is very clear that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding DL and also he was not competent to ride the motorcycle. Therefore, he has also contributed to the accident in question. However, the Tribunal having lost sight of these facts has erred in holding that the driver of the bus alone was

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶58

negligent in causing the accident and saddled entire liability on

¶59

the Corporation to pay compensation.

¶60

QAUNTUM OF COMPENSATION

¶61

a) Firstly, the claimant has suffered head injury and he has examined Dr.Chandrashekhar T.R., who is a psychiatrist, but he is not a neurologist. However, PW2 issued Disability Certificate, who is not eligible to assess the disability of the claimant. On the basis of the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability of the injured at 10%, which is on the higher side.

¶62

b) Secondly, he contended that even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, but no proof of income is produced to establish the sane. Under that circumstance, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the higher side.

¶63

c) Lastly, he contended that considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and also medical evidence on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and other incidental expenses is on the higher side.

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶65

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal filed by the Corporation by dismissing the appeal of the claimant.

¶66

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶67

NEGLIGENCE

¶68

The accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus came in opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant and due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus. On the basis of the complaint lodged, the police have registered FIR and after investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident.

¶69

QAUNTUM OF COMPENSATION

¶70

The claimant was aged 20 years and he asserts that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing milk vending business as well as agricultural work. The Tribunal assessed

¶71

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶72

notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was an inpatient for about 9 days in the hospital. The claimant has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶73

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶74

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶75

NEGLIGENCE

¶76

9. The case of the claimant is that on 25.09.2017 the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22-EV-8459 from his land towards his house along with his relative as a pillion rider. When they reached near Sunagar Halla on Gokak-Belagavi road, at about 16.00 hours, one KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1911 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant from opposite

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶78

direction and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous head injuries and was hospitalized.

¶79

10. To prove the case, the claimant has examined himself as PW-1, doctor as PW-2 and produced 13 documents. The claimant in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. To disprove the case, the respondent has examined the driver of the bus as RW-1 and also examined officer of the Corporation as RW2, but did not produce any documents.

¶80

11. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶83

required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM –v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:

¶84

“25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”

¶85

12. The claimant in his evidence has specifically stated that he was proceeding in the motorcycle as a pillion rider and the driver of the bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. After the accident, complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus. The police have registered FIR and after thorough

¶86

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶87

investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus.

¶88

13. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of parties and materials available on record such as FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet, has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus alone was negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal has rightly answered the issue No.1 in the affirmative. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence, is confirmed.

¶89

14. In respect of the contention of the Corporation that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid driving license, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others³ has held at paragraph-9 of its judgment as under:

¶90

9. If a person, drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same by itself, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the Courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently, which

¶91

3 (2008) 12 SCC 436

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶94

contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

¶95

(Emphasis supplied)

¶96

A reading of the above paragraph makes it very clear that

¶97

merely because, rider of motorcycle was not holding driving license, that itself cannot be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

¶98

Negligence cannot be fixed on the shoulders of the rider of the motorcycle merely for not having driving license, unless he was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently. Riding the motorcycle without

¶99

DL is an offence under the MV Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle due to which the accident has occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that driver of the bus alone was negligent in causing the accident.

¶100

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

¶101

15. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained following injuries:

¶102

a) Linear undisplaced fracture of occipital bone;

¶103

b) Left side gradually extending and involving posterior at right lateral wall of foramina magnum;

¶104

13 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶106

c) Scalp hematoma in left parieto-occipital region and acute subdural bleed in right fronto-parietotemporal region.

¶107

d) Multiple hemorrhage contusion in right basi/anterior frontal lobe.

¶108

16. The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has stated that the claimant suffered disability to an extent of 25 to 30%. The Tribunal taking note of the evidence of PW2 has assessed whole body disability of the claimant at 10%, which in our view is just and proper and does not call for modification.

¶109

17. Further, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The claimant has not produced any proof of income to establish the same. In the absence of any documentary evidence, notional income of the claimant has to be assessed as per guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the said guidelines, notional income for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant as 20 years and appropriate multiplier of 18. Applying the same, the loss of future income

¶110

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15451-DB MFA No. 103134 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102437 of 2019

¶111

of the claimant works out to Rs.2,21,400/- (Rs.10,250 x 12 x 18 x 10/100).

¶112

18. Considering the nature of injuries and also duration of treatment taken by the claimant, the compensation amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities at Rs.20,000/- is

¶113

on the higher side and same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and reasonable the same is undisturbed. Therefore, without modifying the quantum of compensation, we hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,91,100/- is just and proper and same is undisturbed.

¶114

19. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

a) Both appeals are disposed off to the aforesaid extent.

¶117

b) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified.

¶118

c) The appellant/Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

¶119