Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024MFA/21/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the Claims Tribunal's award of compensation in an accident involving a bus and motorcycle. The High Court modified the award, enhancing compensation to Rs.13,81,156 by adjusting future income and amenity loss heads.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.13,81,156 explicitly including loss of amenities. Corporation directed to deposit amount with interest.

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshman Shetty @ B… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶8

IN MFA No. 21/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, PRESENTLY BY THE K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE, K H ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560 027. REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

LAKSHMAN SHETTY @ B LAKSHMINNA BABU SHETTY

¶16

@ LAXMANA B, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O BABU SHETTY, R/O DOOR NO.203, HANAGALLU VILLAGE, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.

¶17

SMT. SUNITHA R,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶20

W/O SUDEEP, AGED MAJOR, R/O NO. A-100, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH NO.1, NAZARBAD BRANCH, MYSORE-571 236.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI JEEVAN.K, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. SONALI.C, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI SHARANNAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 13/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMAWARPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,83,350/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO. 770/2020

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

LAKSHMAN SHETTY @ B LAKSHMINNA BABU SHETTY @ LAXMANA B, S/O BABU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.203, HANAGALLU VILLAGE, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶33

MYSORE, KARNATAKA.

¶34

SMT. SUNITHA R, W/O SUDEEP, R/O NO.A-100, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, SOMAWARPET TOWN, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶35

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH NO.1, NAZARABAD BRANCH, MYSORE-571 236.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. SONALI.C, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI SHARANAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO. 13/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMAWARPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

MFA.No.21/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company

¶43

and MFA.No.770/2020 is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment dated

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶46

27.08.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Somwarpete in MVC No.13/2018.

¶47

Facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals briefly stated are that on 27.06.2017 at about 12.30 pm, the claimant along with his friend as pillion rider (Thammanne Gowda) was proceeding in Suzuki Access 125 Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R-5639 from Somawarpete to Kushalnagar. The claimant riding the motorcycle slowly and after observing the rules and regulations of the traffic on the extreme left side of the road. When he was proceeding at Madalapura Junction in Kushalnagar, the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4890 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶48

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶51

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.

¶52

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and only respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶53

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.11,83,350/- 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.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶56

The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions:

¶57

a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was riding the motorcycle while speaking on his mobile phone and failed to notice the bus approaching from the opposite direction. RW.1 in his evidence has categorically stated the same. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶58

b) Secondly, the claimant and pillion rider have turned hostile in criminal case. The Tribunal without considering the judgment in C.C.No.936/2017, which clearly indicates that the claimant has also contributed to the accident has fastened liability on the Corporation.

¶59

c) Thirdly, in respect of quantum, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month as a Mechanic, he has not produced any document to prove the same. Therefore, notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is on higher side.

¶60

d) Lastly, considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the evidence of doctor and

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶63

medical records, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶64

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

¶65

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶66

a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was riding the motorcycle after following all procedure of law and traffic rules and was not using the mobile. No evidence has been produced to prove that the claimant was using the mobile phone at the time of the accident. He further contended that stray admission in the criminal case cannot be considered in deciding the negligence in motor vehicles' claim. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record has rightly held that the driver of the bus is negligent in causing the accident.

¶67

b) Secondly, at the time of the accident, the claimant

¶68

was working as a Mechanic and earning Rs.50,000/- per

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶71

month. Due to the accidental injury, he is unable to do his day to day work. The monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side.

¶72

c) Thirdly, due to that accident, claimant has suffered grievous injury and was inpatient for a period of 52 days. He suffered lot of pain during the treatment. He has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and suffering' and 'other incidental expenses' is on lower side. Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 'loss of amenities'.

¶73

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation.

¶74

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

¶75

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶76

RE:CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

¶77

The case of the claimant is that on 27.06.2017 at about 12.30 pm, the claimant along with his friend as pillion rider (Thammanne Gowda) was proceeding in Suzuki Access 125 Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R5639 from Somawarpete to Kushalnagar. The claimant riding the motorcycle slowly and after observing the rules and regulations of the traffic on the extreme left side of the road. When he was proceeding at Madalapura Junction in Kushalnagar, the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.KA-09-F4890 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. After recovering from the injuries, he has filed a claim petition.

¶78

To prove his case, he examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses and produced 189 documents as Exs.P1 to P189. In his evidence, he has reiterated the

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶81

statement made in the claim petition. The respondent examined the driver as RW.1, who testified that the claimant was riding the motorcycle while using a mobile phone. According to RW.1, the claimant failed to observe the vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and collided with it. However, aside from RW.1's testimony, the respondent failed to produce any additional witnesses to corroborate the claim that the claimant was using a mobile phone at the time of the accident.

¶82

On the other hand, the FIR, complaint, charge sheet, and PW.1's evidence collectively establish that the bus driver's negligence solely caused the accident. After examining the records, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the bus driver's negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Although the claimant and pillion rider's testimonies in the criminal case turned hostile, this alone cannot be a ground for attributing contributory negligence to them. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of parties’, rightly held that the bus driver's negligence was

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶85

the sole cause of the accident. It has been held in catena of decisions of several High Courts including our High Court and Apex Court that the Tribunal while functioning under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is an independent beneficial legislation introduced for the benefit of victims in road traffic accidents has to independently decide the question relating to negligence on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed before it.

¶86

RE:QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

¶87

Even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month as a Mechanic, he has not produced any document to establish the same. Since he has produced the documents to show that he was a Mechanic and was a skilled labourer, I am of the opinion that the monthly income has to be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly assessed whole body disability at 30% and applied the multiplier as '14'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶90

Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.12,0001214*30%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶91

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and was inpatient for a period of 52 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the evidence of doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant is also entitled for 'loss of income during the laid up period' for a period of 6 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.12,000*6 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’ and he is also entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

¶92

14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶93

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶96

15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶97

compensation:

¶98

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	1,00,000	1,00,000
Medical expenses	3,52,356	3,52,356
Nourishment and	25,000	25,000
conveyance
Loss of income during	50,000	72,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	0	75,000
In patient attendant	52,000	52,000
charges
Loss of income due to disability	5,04,000	6,04,800
Future expense	1,00,000	1,00,000
Total	11,83,356	13,81,156

¶99

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

a) The appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part .

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:39844 MFA No. 21 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 770 of 2020

¶104

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶105

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,81,156/-.

¶106

d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶107

e) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶108

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶109

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

The Divisional Controller v. Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

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

Sri M v Venkataramegowda Vs Sri K P Umar

Sri Surendra H P Vs Sri Chikkanna

Mohan Naik @ Mohan Naik Chowan Vs M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Dhanalakshmi Vs K K Murthy

Rangaswamy G.R Vs M.N. Boregowda

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rajanna S