Managing Director Vs Dr. v Rajendra Prasad

MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE NOW REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE BANGALORE, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE BANGALORE.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. S. NIRMMALA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . DR. V. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O RAMMOHAN RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CCO OF CORPORATION BANK, R/O WARD NO.5, 7^{TH '} B' CROSS ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR EXTENSION CHIKKAMANGALUR CITY- 577 101.

¶18

2 . SHANTHAPPA S/O VEERANNA SHETTY

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED 60 YEARS DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA- 18/F-795, CHIKKAMANGALUR DEPOT CHIKKAMANGALUR- 577 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED )

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV CT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,58,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 3105/2020

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

DR. V. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAMMOHAN RAO, RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CCO OF CORPORATION BANK, R/O WARD NO.5, 7^TH 'B' CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR EXTENSION, CHIKMAGALUR CITY.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR C.R.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

1 . SRI. SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI. VEERANNA SHETTY, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA-18-F-795,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CHIKKAMAGALUR DEPOT, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶36

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 027.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT. S.NIRMMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 1.3.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER,MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶42

CAV COMMON JUDGMENT

¶43

Both these appeals arise out of judgment and award

¶44

dated 22.11.2019, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru, (for short, `Tribunal'), in MVC.No.416/2018.

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

MFA.No.3105/2020 is filed by the claimant

¶48

seeking enhancement of compensation and

¶49

MFA.No.3636/2020 is filed by the Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶50

Both these appeals arise out of common

¶51

judgment and award and hence, they are taken up together for disposal.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶53

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶54

The brief facts of the case are that, on 20.08.2017, the claimant was travelling from Udupi to Chikkamagaluru in a Swift car bearing registration No.KA-20/MA-8775, along with his colleagues. The said car met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No.KA-18/F-795 belonging to Respondent No.2-Corporation. As a result of the impact, claimant sustained grievous injuries. He underwent

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

surgeries and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons prayed to award compensation.

¶58

Respondent No.1 was the driver and respondent No.2-Corporation was the owner of offending vehicle. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the car and that the driver of the bus was not at all responsible for the accident. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶59

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶60

The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked 15 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-15. The respondentCorporation examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-4.

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

¶64

appreciating the evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending bus

¶65

and awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶66

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	2,00,000/-
Medical expenses and hospital charges	28,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	3,90,000/-
Conveyance charges	15,000/-
Food and nourishment	15,000/-
Attendant charges	10,000/-
Total	6,58,000/-

¶67

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶68

appearing for both sides in both appeals.

¶69

The fact of accident is not in dispute. It is the contention of the claimant that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus and respondent No.1 contends that accident occurred due to negligence of

¶70

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

driver of the car and in the curve, driver of the car drove his vehicle in a negligent manner and hit the bus at its right side and caused the accident. Therefore, the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. This fact was seriously contended before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering materials available on record held that, accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus.

¶73

Undisputedly respondent No.1 was charge

¶74

sheeted for the accident in question. It is prima facie sufficient to accept the contention of the claimant. Moreover, claimant was a passenger travelling in the car. Even if the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles, the claimant can still claim compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors. Therefore, the claim petition is maintainable against the respondents. Moreover, owner and insurer of the car are not parties to the proceedings. Behind their

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

back, the Tribunal or Court cannot decide regarding the negligence of driver of the car and it is not permissible.

¶78

In the case of Khenyei -vs- New India Assurance Company Limited and others¹ , i t was held that, in the absence of another joint tortfeasor, it is not permissible to decide negligence of driver of the said vehicle. Therefore, contention of the Corporation in this regard is not tenable.

¶79

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the amount of compensation awarded is highly inadequate. He further elaborates that under the head `medical expenses', Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.28,000/- though claimant had spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- and only 30% to 40% of the said amount was reimbursed by the Bank. This evidence was not at all considered by the Tribunal. He further contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads

¶80

1 (2015) 9 SCC 273

¶81

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

are meagre and not adequate. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶84

The learned counsel for the Corporation contended that amount of compensation awarded especially under the head 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of income during the laid up period' are exorbitant and the same was awarded without any materials placed on record.

¶85

Learned counsel for the Corporation further submits that the claimant has sustained fracture of acetabulum and he underwent surgery. In the crossexamination, PW-1 admits that Bank has records regarding submission of his entire bills and receipts of medical expenses and also the amount paid by the Bank and he had no difficulty to produce the said documents, however, no such documents were produced. Deliberately the said documents were suppressed just to claim higher amount of compensation or to recover the medical

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

expenses twice; once from the Bank and second time from respondent-Corporation.

¶89

Learned counsel further contends that even with respect to loss of income during laid up period, no materials were placed on record, though such materials were available according to evidence of PW-1. Still the Tribunal accepted his oral evidence and erroneously held that claimant lost three months leave and lost his income. She further submits that the amount awarded under both the above heads needs recalculation. With these reasons, prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Corporation.

¶90

The submission of the learned counsel

¶91

appearing for the Corporation is tenable. PW-1 during his evidence has stated that he had spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he submitted original bills to the Bank for reimbursement and he got reimbursement of 30% to 40% and according to Bank Circulars, an employee is entitled for reimbursement only

¶92

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

to an extent of 30% to 40% of actual medical expenses. He has also stated that, he availed leave of three months and had he not availed it, he could have encashed the said leave. Thereby he lost the said income. In his cross-examination, he admits that there are materials to show that he had availed earned leave/medical leave for three months. He also stated that there was no hurdle for him to produce the said documents.

¶95

PW-1 being the Manager of the Bank and custodian of the documents, did not produce even true copies of the said documents before the Tribunal to substantiate his oral evidence, for the reasons best known to him. The claimant has suppressed material documents from the Court. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to award the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as stated by PW-1 in his oral evidence. Claimants even not produced any scrap of document to prove that he availed three months leave. Claimant was Manager of schedule Bank. If he had availed the leave for three months,

¶96

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

certainly there would be documents. In such circumstances, Court shall take adverse inference. Hence, awarding of compensation under the head `loss of income during laid up period' is erroneous.

¶99

The claimant had sustained fracture of acetabulum. Ex.P-5 reveals that, "claimant sustained displaced comminuted fracture of the posterior wall of the acetabulum of right hip bone noted with posterior column, few tiny air pockets are noted with the intra-articular extension of the fracture line, multiple tiny bones fragments in the soft tissue along with the posterior aspect of the right hip joint, posteromedial dislocation of the head of the right femur from the acetabular rim is noted." It was given by Manipal Hospital wherein claimant had taken treatment.

¶100

Ex.P-6 i.e., discharge summary dated 28.08.2017 reveals that he was admitted in hospital on 20.08.2017 and discharged from the hospital on

¶101

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

28.08.2017, during this period, he underwent surgery. He

¶104

was admitted as inpatient in the hospital for about 10 days. Ex.P-7 is another discharge summary dated 15.09.2017. It also discloses the injuries sustained by the claimant in the vehicle accident. Looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, awarding an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is excessive, which requires to be reduced.

¶105

Claimant was a Manager of the Bank. He was aged about 59 years at the time of accident. It appears, during the trial of the matter, he retired from the service. The Tribunal did not award any amount of compensation towards `loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability', since he was an employee and there was no evidence to show that there was any loss of income due to injuries sustained in the accident. Fracture of acetabulum certainly causes certain deformities and loss of few amenities.

¶106

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

According to PW-2, claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 20%. It is true that claimant is not entitled to compensation under the head `loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability' since he was a permanent employee and his income was not affected due to disability. However, the said disability would affect his comfort of life and he might have lost some of the amenities available to a healthy person. As his age increases, the said disability would also increase and would cause more discomfort in his life.

¶109

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of

¶110

compensation towards loss of amenities. Therefore, claimant is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶111

The Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation towards conveyance charges, special diet and attendance charges, which does not require any enhancement.

¶112

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

For aforesaid discussions, claimant is entitled

¶115

for following amount of compensation:

¶116

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	50,000/-
Medical expenses	28,000/-
Conveyance charges	15,000/-
Food and nourishment	15,000/-
Attendant charges	10,000/-
Loss of amenities	1,00,000/-
Total	2,18,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	6,58,000/-

¶117

The claimant is entitled to compensation of

¶118

Rs.2,18,000/- as against Rs.6,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶119

Tribunal at its discretion awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶121

16 -

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court passes

¶124

following :

¶125

ORDER

¶126

i) MFA No.3105/2020 and

¶127

MFA.No.3636/2020 are partly allowed .

¶128

ii) The judgment and award dated 22.11.2019, passed in MVC.No.416/2018, by the learned Prl.Senior Judge and M.A.C.T., Chikamangalaru, is modified.

¶129

iii) Claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- as against Rs.6,58,000/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶130

iv) Respondent No.2 - Corporation shall deposit the said amount with interest, if not already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶131

17 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:41515 MFA No. 3636 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3105 of 2020

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

v) Whatever amount deposited by the respondent No.2-Corporation in MFA.No.3636/2020 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. If any excess amount is deposited by the Corporation, same shall be refunded to corporation.

¶135

Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal

¶136

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶137

bk

¶138

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Managing Director v. Dr. v Rajendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director v. Dr. v Rajendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K N Prakash Vs Sri Gajendra Prasad H N

Mrs. Jareena Vs Mr. Abdul Naseer

Muneeraiah M Vs Icici Lombard Gen.Ins. Co.Ltd.

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Regional Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri Rudrappa @ Rudresha

Smt.Pushpa S Vs Sri.Narayanaswamy v