Partly allowed

Mohammed Mijaan v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/6523/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award: the Corporation disputed liability while the claimant sought enhancement for grievous leg injury. The High Court upheld liability based on the police charge sheet and absence of contrary evidence, and enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Corporation's appeal (MFA 4886/2021) dismissed; claimant's appeal (MFA 6523/2021) allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.50,000/- carrying 6% interest p.a., to be deposited within eight weeks.

Mohammed Mijaan Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6523 OF 2021(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4886 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶5

IN MFA No. 6523 OF 2021:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED MIJAAN, S/O ABDUL ASLAM PAASHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, AMER MOHALLA HOSALINE, ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Location: HIGH K.S.R.T.C. MANGALORE DIVISION, COURT OF KARNATAKA MANGALORE - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1895/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶13

IN MFA NO. 4886 OF 2021:

¶14

BETWEEN:

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE.

¶16

...APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MOHAMMED MIJAAN, S/O ABDUL ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O AMEER MOHALLA, HOSALINE ROLAD, HASSAN.

¶20

...RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1895/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,16,435/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶26

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶27

These two appeals are the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC No.1895/2017 dated 15.04.2021.

¶28

Heard learned counsel Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao who represents the appellant in MFA No.4886/2021 who appears also for the respondent in the connected matter i.e., MFA No.6523/2021. Likewise heard Sri.Girish B Baladare learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.6523/2021 who is also appearing for the respondent in MFA No.4886/2021.

¶29

For the sake of convenience of discussion, the parties to the proceedings hereinafter be referred as the 'Corporation' and the 'claimant'.

¶30

While the Corporation filed an appeal disputing its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶31

The case of the claimant in nutshell is that on 09.07.2017, while he was proceeding on a motorbike bearing registration No.KA03-JK-9164 on Ballupete-Kodlipete Road and

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶33

when he reached near Jammanahally K.E.B. junction, the bus of the Corporation bearing registration No.KA-19F-3257 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the bike due to which the claimant fell down and suffered grievous injuries.

¶34

The Tribunal which dealt with the matter, subjecting evidence of PW1, RW1, CW1, Exs.P1 to P11, Exs.R1 to R5 and Exs.C1 to C4 to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation. Also, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,16,435/as compensation.

¶35

Arguing the matter, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao learned

¶36

counsel for the Corporation contends that the driver of the Corporation was driving his vehicle on left side of the road by following the rules and regulations. The road was upgradient. The claimant who was driving his motorbike at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction, got frightened on seeing the bus and thereby lost control over his bike and he himself fell down. On noticing the claimant falling down from the motorbike, the driver of the bus

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶38

and the conductor, on humanitarian grounds stopped the bus, attended the Claimant and helped him in proceeding to hospital for treatment. No complaint whatsoever was given immediately after the accident or soon thereafter. After nine days, the claimant only with an intention to gain unlawfully, gave complaint to Police. Police with an intention to help the claimant, registered a false case against the driver of the Corporation. As the road was upgradient at the place of accident, there is no possibility whatsoever for the driver of the bus to drive the bus either at a high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. Also the bus did not touch the motorbike at all. However, without considering all these aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the Corporation is liable to pay compensation, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal.

¶39

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, Sri.Girish B Baladare learned counsel for the claimant contends that immediately after the accident, the claimant who sustained grievous injuries, was shifted to Bangalore for treatment. At Bangalore, the claimant underwent a surgery also. In that situation, the claimant could not report the matter to Police

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶41

immediately. However, the Claimant carried no intention either to gain wrongfully or to mislead. Only with a intention to escape liability, the Corporation is projecting a false version.

¶42

Learned counsel Sri.Girish B Baladare also contends that Police after due investigation laid chart sheet against the driver of the Corporation and till now neither the Corporation nor the driver of the bus challenged the contents of the charge sheet. The claimant through his oral testimony as well as producing all the documentary proof, established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability against the Corporation and thus, the appeal filed by the corporation is not maintainable.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained fracture of left femur. Equally it is not in dispute that the claimant was initially taken to Sri Chamarajendra Hospital and he was discharged on the date of the accident itself as the claimant and his attenders wanted to take treatment at Bangalore. Also it is not in dispute that the claimant took

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶45

treatment at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore as inpatient.

¶46

The Tribunal discussing at length with regard to the merits of the matter made a particular mention regarding the contents of Ex.P11 discharge summary which was issued by Sri Chamarajendra Hospital wherein it is mentioned that the injured sustained injury in a road traffic accident. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, when the Hospital Authorities were informed that it is a medico legal case, the hospital authorities were under liability to inform the same to the concerned police but they did not do so. Having sustained grievous injury that too fracture to the lower limb, one cannot expect the claimant to go to police station immediately after the accident and give a complaint to Police. The prime concern would be to get rid of the pain and to take proper treatment. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission that is made by learned counsel for the Corporation that there is collusion between the Police and claimant for foisting the false case against the driver of the Corporation. The entire version of the Corporation is that after the claimant fell down, the driver and conductor of the bus as well as passengers in the bus attended him. That being

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶48

¶49

the case, the Corporation would have examined atleast one of the passengers who could depose what happened on the date of accident. However, no such evidence whatsoever is produced.

¶50

Having observed the place of accident, conducting spot mahazar and on examining relevant witnesses, a charge sheet was laid by the Police holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation. Such being the case, the Corporation is under liability to produce substantive proof to establish that the investigation done by the Police is at fault and that the accident did not occur in the manner projected by the Investigating Officer. However, no such evidence is found on record. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal did not err in fastening the liability against the driver of the Corporation.

¶51

Coming to the quantum that is awarded as compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence produced, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering, Rs.73,155/towards medical expenses, Rs.35,000/towards diet, food, nourishment,

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶53

conveyance and other expenses and Rs.2,33,280/- towards loss of future income.

¶54

The submission that is made by Sri.Girish B Baladare is that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the accident and by the evidence produced, the appellant could establish that there is shortening of left leg for more than 3 inches. However, the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head loss of amenities in life. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation

¶55

The finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was

¶56

aged about 21 years by the date of accident needs no interference. Also the amount awarded under the head loss of future income i.e., Rs.2,33,280/-, is justifiable. For the single grievous injury sustained, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering. However, as rightly contended, the Tribunal did not award any sum as compensation for loss of amenities in life and also loss of income during laid up period. Having considered the nature of

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶58

10 -

¶59

injury sustained, this Court is of the view that the claimant would not have not attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of three months. Also considering the fact that there is shortening of left lower limb for more than 3 inches, this Court is of the view that the claimant is certainly entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities in life. Taking into consideration the amount awarded as compensation under each head, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled for a global sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal, which covers loss of amenities in life and loss of earnings during laid up period. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The appeal in MFA No.4886/2021 is dismissed without costs.

¶62

(ii) The appeal in MFA No.6523/2021 is allowed in part.

¶63

(iii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan through orders in MVC No.1895/2017 dated 15.04.2021 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

¶64

11 -

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:39378 MFA No. 6523 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4886 of 2021

¶66

(iv) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶67

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

¶68

(vi) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.

¶69

(vii) The amount, if any, in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately.

¶70

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Mohammed Mijaan v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Mijaan v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

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

Smt. Eramma Vs Mr. Haseena

Afzal Ahmad Vs Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Kavitha Basavaraj Uppar Vs Aishwarya Chakraborty

Smt. Pinki Devi Vs Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

Sri Venkatesh T M Vs the Manager

Narasimha Murthy H R Vs Krishnaiah L C