Partly allowed

Sri.Sriram v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024MFA/1914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A motorcyclist injured in a collision with a BMTC bus appeals for enhancement of tribunal compensation. The court upheld the 25% contributory negligence finding but raised notional income to Rs.14,000 per month with 10% future prospects and multiplier 11, enhancing total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,89,405 to Rs.4,87,717; respondent to pay Rs.3,65,790 with 6% p.a. interest; deposit within eight weeks.

Sri.Sriram Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1914 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SRIRAM, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT 120/1, SIDDAPURA, BANGALORE 560 066

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C., BMTC NO.27, SHANTHINAGAR, , BENGALURU 560 027

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.3672/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-21, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T learned counsel for the

¶21

appellant as well as Sri.F.S.Dabali learned counsel for respondent.

¶22

The claimant is before this Court challenging the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.3672/2019 dated 10.06.2020.

¶23

Arguing the matter, Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T submits that this appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, that though the appellant did not drive his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, yet the tribunal attributed contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the appellant which is unjust. Secondly, the amount awarded as compensation is grossly low.

¶24

Arguing on first point, Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T contends that the entire negligence lies on part of the driver of the bus, which is involved in the accident and

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶26

therefore, after due investigation charge sheet was laid against the said driver. However, ignoring the said fact and without any basis, the tribunal gave finding that the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is 25%, which is erroneous.

¶27

Per contra the submission that is made by Sri.F.S.Dabali for respondent is that the sketch, that is produced, clearly reveals the manner in which the accident occurred. Though the entire negligence lies on part of the appellant, the tribunal fastened liability on his part upto 25% however, the same is justifiable.

¶28

The manner of happening of accident as projected

¶29

by the appellant is that on 29.05.2019 at about 2.00 p.m while he was proceeding on a motorcycle on Whitefield main road, the driver of respondent's bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3222 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he sustained injuries. The respondent's version is that the appellant all of a sudden came in a rash and

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶31

negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the right side portion of the bus.

¶32

There is no denial of the fact that basing on the complaint given, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared Ex.P-3 spot Mahazar, Ex.P-4 sketch and finally laid Ex.P-7 charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The appellant who examined himself as PW-1 stated that the driver of the bus was at fault. The driver of the bus was got examined as RW-1 by the respondent and he deposed that the appellant was at fault. Basing on such evidence, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the contributory negligence on part of the appellant is 25%.

¶33

It is not in fact, that is denied, that motorcycle hit the front right corner of the bus. As rightly observed by the tribunal, both the drivers i.e., the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the appellant herein and the driver of the bus failed to take reasonable care while driving their respective vehicles.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶35

Having considered all these aspects, the tribunal attributed contributory negligence on part of the appellant as 25%. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the said finding.

¶36

Now coming to the quantum of amount that is awarded as compensation, the tribunal through the impugned order held that the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to is Rs.3,89,405/- divided under following heads:-

¶37

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earnings due	2,03,280-00
to disability
Pain and sufferings	40,000-00
Medical expenses	37,125-00
Future Medical expenses	25,000-00
Conveyance, food and	15,000-00
nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses
Loss of income during laid up period	44,000-00
Loss of amenities in life/Life comforts and expectancy of life/Marriage prospectus	25,000-00
Total	3,89,405-00

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶39

Deducting 25% of the said amount, ordered the

¶40

respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,053.75/-.

¶41

The appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula and underwent surgery i.e., internal fixation with IMIL nailing. PW-2 assessed the disability in respect of the left lower limb as 42%. The tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 14%. The said observation needs no interference.

¶42

As per the version of the appellant, as painter he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day. However, the appellant failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to establish the said fact. Making his submission in this regard, Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T contends that the accident occurred in the year 2019 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/- per month and atleast the said figure should have been considered by the tribunal, however, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶44

Sri.F.S.Dabali learned counsel for respondent did not rise any objection for taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/-per month. Also the sum suggested is justifiable.

¶45

Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/per month, disability as 14% in respect of whole body, adding 10% of the earnings towards future prospects, the appellant being aged about 55 years by the date of accident and applying the appropriate multiplier '11', the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings, due to permanent physical disability is as under:

¶46

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income	14,000-00
Annual income	1,68,000-00
Add 10% towards future prospects	1,84,800-00
Apply appropriate multiplier 11	20,32,800-00
Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability being 14%	2,84,592-00

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶48

Having considered the nature of injuries

¶49

sustained, the surgery underwent and the occupation of the appellant i.e., painter, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal duties atleast for a period of 4 months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 4).

¶50

It is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for 22 days. Having considered this fact, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Thus, the total compensation, which the appellant is entitled to is as under:-

¶51

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Compensation for pain and suffering	40,000-00
Medical expenses	37,125-00
Food, extra nourishment,	20,000-00
conveyance and attendant
charges
Loss of future earnings	2,84,592-00

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶54

Loss of income during laid	56,000-00
up period
Future medical expenses	25,000-00
Loss of amenities in life	25,000-00
Total	4,87,717-00

¶55

The contributory negligence on part of the appellant being 25%, the respondent is at liability to pay the appellant a sum of Rs.3,65,787.75/- rounded off to Rs.3,65,790/- (75% of Rs.4,87,717/-).

¶56

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the

¶57

appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.3672/2019 dated 10.06.2020 is enhanced from Rs.3,89,405/- to Rs.4,87,717/-.

¶61

iii. The respondent is at liability to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,790/- to the appellant.

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37810 MFA No. 1914 of 2022

¶63

iv. The sum payable carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶64

v. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

vi. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶66

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶67

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri.Sriram v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sriram v. the Managing Director

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

Puttanarasamma Vs Manju K

Dinesh M Vs Mr Jagadeesh

Thanfi Kader. M. P. Vs H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Smt Krishnamma

Sri Boregowda Vs Sri Srinivasa H B

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath