Partly allowed

Andanigowda v. the Manager, Ksrtc Main Depot

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2024MFA/183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the motor accident compensation. The court modified the tribunal's award from Rs. 1,12,480 to Rs. 2,27,240, adjusting income, disability percentages, and additional heads of damage like pain, shock, and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed partly; compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,27,240 payable within four weeks with interest @ 6% p.a.

Andanigowda Vs the Manager, Ksrtc Main Depot — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANDANIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGER,

¶13

KSRTC MAIN DEPOT, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU - 570 002.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

NOSHAD,

¶16

S/O. MOHAMMED, MAJOR, R/AT ALANCHARI HOUSE, NAYACUT POST, SULTHAN BHATHERI, VAYANAD, KERALA STATE - 673 592.

¶17

3. THE MANAGER,

¶18

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANTARAJ URS ROAD, MYTHRI ORCADE, NEAR SARASWATHI TALKIES, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU CITY - 570 005

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶20

MOHD. JUBIR SHARIFF, S/O AMZED PASHA, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 535/P, NR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002.

¶21

THE MANAGER,

¶22

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANTARAJ URS ROAD, MYTHRI ORCADE, NEAR SARASWATHI TALKIES, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU CITY - 570 005.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5; NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1508/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2019 passed in MVC.No.1508/2016 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶31

compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶33

their status before the tribunal.

¶34

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶35

On 16.10.2016 at 5.45 p.m., the claimant was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09-F-5076 on Bengaluru-Mysuru national highway, when he reached near Funfort, S.R.Patna Taluk, the driver of the bus drove

¶36

the bus in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly, he applied break when the driver of car bearing No.KA-04-Z3842 and driver of lorry bearing No.KL-58-D-9436 which was moving ahead of the bus resulting in the accident of the bus. Due to the occurrence of accident, the claimant, who was an inmate of the bus, sustained injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, S.R.Patna, wherein, first-aid treatment was given and thereafter to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶39

K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein, he was an inpatient for a period of 10 days and treated conservatively.

¶40

3.1 It is stated that the claimant spent Rs.1,50,000/towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards food and conveyance charges and Rs.350/- towards attendant charges. The claimant was aged 50 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. He was working as an agriculturist and earning income of Rs.12,000/- per month. In view of the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation against Corporation and owners of car and lorry.

¶41

3.2 On service of notice, respondent Nos.2 and 4 did not appear before the tribunal and they were placed ex parte . Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 had appeared through their counsel, but respondent Nos.1 and 5 filed statement of objections denying the involvement of the vehicle, negligence attributed to them and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the other vehicles. However, not admitting their liability and the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶44

age, avocation and income so claimed by the claim petition. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶45

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶46

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondent No.1 examined its driver as RW.1 and not marked any documents. Other respondents did not lead evidence.

¶47

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,12,480/- with interest @ 9% p.a. fastened the liability against the respondents in the ratio 40:30:30 to the KSRTC bus, insurers and owners of the car and lorry respectively. The tribunal also directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days.

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶49

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶50

It is the contention of learned counsel for

¶51

appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation and assessed the income of the claimant which is on the lower side. The tribunal taken the disability on the lower side. He further contends that the tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under other heads. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the claimant and seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶52

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for Corporation and learned counsel representing Insurance Company of the two vehicles involved in the accident vehemently contend that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the award passed by the tribunal. The tribunal has taken the correct income, in view of there being no proof of income is produced by the claimant. The

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶54

tribunal assessed the disability based on the evidence adduced by PW.2-Doctor. The tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation under other heads, which does not call for interference.

¶55

5.1 Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation contends that there is no liability absolutely on the Corporation as the driver of the bus had suddenly applied the break because of the two other vehicles which were ahead of bus. Therefore, liability needs to be shifted on the insurers of the car and lorry.

¶56

5.2 Similar arguments have been put forth by respondent Nos.3 and 5, who contend that KSRTC bus should have maintained distance and should have applied the brake, in order to avoid any kind of accident. Therefore, on these grounds, they seek to dismiss the appeal.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for claimant, Corporation and the Insurance Company, it is not in dispute accident occurred on 16.10.2016, when the

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶59

claimant-inmate in the KSRTC bus, which met with an accident involving two other vehicles i.e., car and lorry leading to the injuries sustained by the claimant. To establish these aspects, claimant has produced Exs.P1 to P5 and P7, the police records. The FIR and charge sheet depict that the filing of the case against the driver of the car as well as driver of the lorry, whereby such being the case negligence is rightly attributed against the drivers of three vehicles, consequently, the insurer and the Corporation. Exs.P6, P8 to P16 are the medical records to show the treatment and financial expenditure met by the claimant.

¶60

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of the claimant, as on the date of occurrence of accident, the claimant was aged about 50 years and the tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘13’, which does not call for interference.

¶61

PW.2-Doctor has opined that the claimant sustained disability to an extent of a particular limb of the

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶63

body at 20.93%, however, he has not assessed the disability to the whole body. The tribunal assessed the disability at 7% to the whole body, which does not call for interference.

¶64

The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income. No documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income of the claimant. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.9,500/- for the accident of the year 2016. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability would be Rs.1,03,740/- (Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 13 x 7%) as against Rs.70,980/awarded by the tribunal.

¶65

Towards pain, shock and agony, the tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.50,000/- under this head.

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶68

Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs.6,500/-. In view of enhancement of the income by this Court from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.9,500/-, the claimant would require at-least three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500/- x 3) under this head.

¶69

Towards disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.35,000/- under this head.

¶70

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head food, nourishment and attendant charges. In view of the claimant was inpatient for 10 days, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- under this head.

¶71

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶72

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,27,240/- as

¶73

against Rs.1,12,480/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶74

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain, shock and agony	50,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	28,500-00
Loss of future earning due to disability	1,03,740-00
Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities	35,000-00
Food, nourishment and attendant charges	10,000-00
TOTAL	2,27,240-00

¶75

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶78

ii) The judgment and award dated 30.07.2019 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC.No.1508/2016 is modified;

¶79

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,27,240/- as against Rs.1,12,480/-;

¶80

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:2546 MFA No. 183 of 2021

¶83

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶84

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be released in favour of claimant, upon proper verification.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

CPN CT: BHK

Andanigowda v. the Manager, Ksrtc Main Depot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andanigowda v. the Manager, Ksrtc Main Depot

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

Bhaskar Devadiga Vs Sathish

The Manager Vs Darshan K

Sri. Mallikarjuna T v Vs Smt. N Radha

Santhosh Poojary Vs Sathish

Sri M Mani Vs Sri a Gulsar

Shri Hemanth Kumar Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.