The Managing Director Vs Sri. Suresh Kumar. M

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.754/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,63,609/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. (FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the respondent-BMTC being

¶23

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), (for short "Tribunal") in M.V.C. No.754/2002.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.12.2021 at about 7.20 to 7.25 a.m., claimant met with an accident at Sapthagiri Layout, 6^th Cross, Thindlu Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F4403. As a result of the impact, claimant sustained fractures and other injuries. He initially received treatment at Narayana Hospital. Later, he was shifted to Supra Multi Speciality Hospital and subsequently to Sagar Hospital, where-in he was admitted as an inpatient and underwent multiple surgeries. He has suffered permanent disability.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

With these reasons, claimant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶29

The respondent-Corporation in its written

¶30

statement denied the petition averments. It has contended that accident occurred due to negligent riding of the motorcycle. In an attempt to avoid a pothole, the rider of the two-wheeler moved to the middle of the road and collided with the bus. Therefore, the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the bus driver. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶31

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶32

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶33

The claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. The respondent-BMTC has examined one witness and marked Ex.R.1.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of

¶37

compensation:

¶38

Sl. No.	Nature of Compensation	Amount
1.	Loss of future earnings	₹.2,01,600/-
2.	Pain and Sufferings	₹.30,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities	₹.15,000/-
4.	Medical Expenses	₹.1,66,009/-
5.	Future medical expenses	₹.15,000/-
6.	Conveyance, Food, Nourishment & Attendant charges	₹.6,000/-
7.	Loss of income during Laid up period and rest period	₹.30,000/-
	Total	₹.4,63,609/-

¶39

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels

¶40

appearing to both the sides.

¶41

9. The learned counsel for the appellant–BMTC

¶42

contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider and, at the most, it could be considered a case of contributory negligence on the part of both the bus driver and the motorcycle rider.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The Tribunal failed to consider this aspect and erroneously held that the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident.

¶46

He further contended that fracture of scapula and clavicle will not lead to any permanent disability. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the permanent disability and has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,01,600/- under the head "loss of future earnings due to permanent disability", which requires reconsideration. The amount of compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the higher side. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned judgment and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

On perusal of the materials available on record, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record in

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

detail, rightly held that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the bus and the same does not call for any interference.

¶52

On revisiting the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal and considering the evidence of PW-2 - doctor, who has stated that claimant has suffered permanent physical disability of 28% to the right upper limb, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant to the whole body as 8%. The Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.15,000/per month and undisputedly, the multiplier applicable in the present case is 14'. On the basis of said calculations, compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability' has been assessed. It does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶53

Looking at the total amount of the compensation, there is no error committed by the Tribunal

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43145 MFA No. 4829 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

in calculating the compensation. The appeal is devoid of

¶57

merits.

¶58

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The appeal stands dismissed.

¶61

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) stands confirmed.

¶62

(iii) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursal in accordance with law.

¶63

Registry is directed to send back the records along

¶64

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶67

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

The Managing Director v. Sri. Suresh Kumar. M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sri. Suresh Kumar. M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasa Mudaliar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma Vs the Manager

Mr Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Manager Vs Smt Girija

P R Shakuntalamma Vs D B Karibasappa

Nagaraj Naik Vs Dr. Manjunath N S