Partly allowed

The Managing Director, Ksrtc, v. Fakkirappa S/O Tirakappa

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024MFA/24745/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge permitted KSRTC appeal against an MVC award where compensation was reduced due to revised disability assessment in one case. The total award was modified from Rs.1,80,400 to Rs.1,20,000 for one respondent, while the appeal for the other respondent (where compensation was higher) was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.1,20,000 for one respondent; appeal dismissed for the other; statutory deposit transmitted for discharge.

The Managing Director, Ksrtc, Vs Fakkirappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24744 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24745 OF 2012

¶8

IN MFA.NO.24744/2012:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, NORTH - WEST DIVISION, GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED AT PRESENT BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YT YALLAPUR, T Q: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶20

13.06.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.246/2010 AND ETC.,

¶21

IN MFA.NO.24745/2012:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, NORTH - WEST DIVISION, GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED AT PRESENT BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA.

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

FAKKIRAPPA S/O. TIRAKAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YT YALLAPUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶28

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.247/2010 AND ETC.,

¶30

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶36

MFA No.24744/2012 is filed challenging the common

¶37

judgment and award dated 13.06.2012 passed in MVC No.246/2010. MFA No.24745/2012 is filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 13.06.2012 passed in MVC No.247/2010.

¶38

Both these appeals are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation¹ under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988² challenging the common judgment and award dated 13.06.2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur³ .

¶39

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶40

In both the appeals the appellants have questioned the judgment and award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded

¶41

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KSRTC’

¶42

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’

¶43

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶45

is excessive. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and other aspects are not under challenge and only aspect with regard to the quantum of compensation is considered in these appeals.

¶46

It is the vehement contention of learned

¶47

counsel for the appellants that the doctor who treated the claimants has not been examined and the assessment of disability made by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the loss of income due to permanent disability is on the higher side. Keeping in mind the said contention, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is considered.

¶48

6. Regarding quantum of compensation in MFA No.24744/2012 (MVC No.246/2010)

¶49

i. The claimant is aged 45 years. The Tribunal has applied appropriate multiplier of 14 which is just and proper.

¶50

ii. The claimant was stated to be doing agriculture and coolie work. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as notional income at ₹100 per day. In

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶52

view of the fact that no documents have been produced by the claimant to prove his income, the income is required to be assessed as per the notional income chart being followed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority⁴ for settlement of cases in Lok-adalat and accordingly having regard to the date of accident, which occurred on 01.08.2009, the income is re-assessed at ₹5,000/- per month.

¶53

iii. The Tribunal has appreciated the injury sustained and noticed the wound certificate (Ex.P7) and testimony of the doctor (PW-4), and has observed that there was a fracture of the T-12 and L-1 vertebra. It was further noticed that the said fractures have been treated conservatively. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%.

¶54

iv. It is relevant to note that having regard to the wound certificate (Ex.P7), the injury sustained by the claimant is undisputed. However, the claimant has not produced any discharge summary to show that

¶55

4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KSLSA’

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶58

he was treated as an inpatient. The doctor examined is admittedly not a treated doctor. However, the claimant has sustained a fracture of T-12 and L-1 vertebra which is a grievous injury and other simple injuries. PW.2 has deposed that there are moderate restrictions while lateral bending and movements of the spine and having regard to the nature of avocation of the claimants, it is just and proper that disability is re-assessed at 5%.

¶59

v. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal of ₹10,000/towards medical expenses, ₹5,000/towards attendant charges and food and nutritious is just and proper.

¶60

vi. Laid up period is taken as one month and the compensation towards the same is re-assessed at ₹5,000/- per month as against ₹3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

vii. The Tribunal has awarded ₹20,000/- towards injury, pain and agony. Having regard to the nature of

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶63

injuries sustained by the claimant, the same is required to be re-assessed at ₹30,000/-.

¶64

viii. Loss of income due to permanent disability is reassessed at ₹42,000/- [₹5,000 x 12 x 14 x 5%] as against ₹50,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

Accordingly, the total compensation under

¶66

various heads is re-assessed as follows:

¶67

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹)	Amount awarded by this Court (₹)
1.	Injury, Pain and agony	20,000.00	30,000.00
2.	Medical expenses	10,000.00	10,000.00
3.	Attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges	5,000.00	5,000.00
4.	Loss of earning during the period of treatment	3,000.00	5,000.00
5.	Loss of Income due to permanent disability	50,400.00	42,000.00
	Total	88,400.00	92,000.00

¶68

Having regard to the re-assessment of

¶69

compensation, since the compensation re-assessed is

¶70

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶71

more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

¶72

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶73

9. Regarding quantum of compensation in MFA No.24745/2012 (MVC No.247/2010):

¶74

i. The claimant is aged 48 years. The Tribunal has applied appropriate multiplier of 13, which is just and proper.

¶75

ii. The claimant was stated to be doing agriculture and coolie work. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as notional income at

¶76

₹100 per day. In view of the fact that no documents have been produced by the claimant to prove his income, the income is required to be

¶77

assessed as per the notional income chart for

¶78

being followed by the

¶79

KSLSA for settlement of case in Lok-adalat. Having regard to the date of accident, which is on 01.08.2009, the income is re-assessed at ₹5,000/- per month.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶82

iii. Having regard to the wound certificate (Ex.P12) and the testimony of doctor (PW.3), it is forthcoming that the claimants sustained injury to the left eye. PW.3 is a treated doctor and not an ophthalmologist. It is further forthcoming that the claimant has taken treatment as an outpatient and his right eye is normal. PW.3 has considered the wound certificate (Ex.P12) and the outpatient follow up card while assessing the disability. Apart from testimony of PW.3 and the wound certificate (Ex.P12), there is no record to show to the extent of disability caused to the left eye.

¶83

iv. However, having regard to the undisputed position that the claimant has sustained injuries to the left eye and that there is material on record to demonstrate that the vision to left eye has been diminished, it is just and proper that the disability of the claimant is assessed at 10% as against 30% assessed by the Tribunal.

¶84

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶85

v. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal of

¶86

₹25,000 towards injury, pain and agony; ₹10,000/- towards medical expenses; ₹5,000/towards travelling expenses; food and nutritious is just and proper.

¶87

vi. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during laid up period. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, the laid up period is taken as one month and the compensation towards the same is assessed at ₹5,000/-.

¶88

vii. Loss of income due to permanent disability is re-

¶89

assessed at ₹78,000/- [₹5,000 X 12 X 13 X 10%] as against ₹1,40,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶90

Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows:

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶93

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹)	Amount awarded by this Court (₹)
1.	Injury, Pain and agony	25,000.00	25,000.00
2.	Medical expenses	10,000.00	10,000.00
3.	Travelling expenses and food, nourishment and conveyance charges	5,000.00	5,000.00
4.	Loss of earning during the period of treatment	------	5,000.00
5.	Loss of Income due to permanent disability	1,40,400.00	78,000.00
	Total	1,80,400.00	1,23,000.00

¶94

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a

¶95

compensation of ₹1,23,000/- as against ₹1 ,80,400/awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶96

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

i) MFA No.24744/2012 (MVC No.246/2010) is dismissed ;

¶99

ii) MFA No.24745/2012 (MVC No.247/2010 is allowed in part ;

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16577 MFA No. 24744 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24745 of 2012

¶102

iii) The impugned common judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MFA No.24745/2012 (MVC No.247/2010) is reduced to a sum of ₹1,20,000/- . In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered;

¶103

iv) The statutory deposit amount deposited in MFA No.24744/2012 by the appellant/KSRTC be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶104

v) The statutory deposit amount deposited in MFA No.24745/2012 be transmitted to the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to discharge the compensation assessed herein together with accrued interest in terms of the award of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall refund the balance amount, if any, to the appellant.

¶105

vi) Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶106

vii) Draw modified awards accordingly.

¶107

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶108

PMP/CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

The Managing Director, Ksrtc, v. Fakkirappa S/O Tirakappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, Ksrtc, v. Fakkirappa S/O Tirakappa

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

Shri Kallppa Vs Shri. Ramachandra

Shri Ramanna Vs Shri Shivappa Revansiddappa Alias Siddappa Doddaningappgol

Smt. U. a. Sheela W/O Late Achyuth Rao Vs Vikas S/O Shridhar Navale

P. Renuka W/O. Late P. Rudramuni Vs Kodanda Rama @ Ramudu S/O. K. Ganganna

The Managing Director, Ksrtc, Vs Ramappa @ Ramanna S/O Channabasappa Havanur

Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer