T. Puttaswamy Vs Divisional Manager

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8705 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8496 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶6

IN MFA No.8705/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. PUTTASWAMY S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally Signed by REKHA R

¶13

Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN TALUK – 573 201.

¶15

(BY MS. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT PASSED IN MVC NO.2010/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELURU, VIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2015; b) ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT; AND c) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

IN MFA NO.8496/2015

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶24

...APPELLANT

¶25

(BY MS. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

T PUTTASWAMY S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O THIRUMANAHALLI MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK – 573 115 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2010/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELUR, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

These two appeals are by the Corporation as well as claimant, both calling in question the judgment and award dated 13.03.2015 in MVC.No.2010/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belur, only on the ground of quantum.

¶37

The corporation in its appeal contends that, according to earlier medical report, the injury was confined to the right foot. However, a subsequent certificate issued by Sanjeevani Hospital there are so many injuries mentioned which were not stated by the hospital authorities Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan.

¶38

The claimant in his appeal contends that the compensation awarded is inadequate, as the Tribunal failed to adopt a proper income and awarded meager amounts under all heads, requiring reconsideration.

¶39

The date of the accident, involvement of

¶40

vehicle, and the fact that the injuries sustained included a

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

crushing injury to the right foot are not in dispute. The Corporation disputes the other injuries mentioned in the Sanjeevani Hospital records, which it argues require reconsideration. For the claimant/appellant, the compensation remains inadequate for the reasons stated above.

¶44

Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the corporation and Sri.Vijayakumar learned counsel appearing for the claimant.

¶46

Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the accident has taken place on 14.09.2013. On the very same day, the claimant was taken to Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan. where he was examined and subjected to an X-ray. The said X-ray discloses that there is crush injury on the right foot. He was discharged on the following day and admitted to Sanjeevini Hospital, Hassan. The records from Sanjeevini Hospital indicate several additional injuries, including a fracture of the posterior wall of the left acetabulum and a

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

compression fracture of the L1 vertebra. These two medical records are contradictory, to one another.

¶50

In these circumstances, madam Renuka argues

¶51

that the Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding exhorbitant compensation, requiring interference by this Court. She further submits that the interest awarded on the compensation is excessive. However, Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel, conceded that the Corporation does not dispute the injury of crushing of the foot.

¶52

Refuting the submissions of Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel, Sri. Vijaykumar T. vehemently submits that Dr. PW2 clearly stated the injuries sustained and the disability resulted. According to the documentary evidence, there is a 26% disability to the particular limb. The claimant was working as an agricultural labourer, which requires hard physical work. The Tribunal, having considered the case and medical records, came to a proper conclusion in awarding compensation, but on the lower side, due to incorrect assessment of income. He further

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

submits that the contentions now raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the Corporation were neither taken nor pleaded before the Tribunal. The Corporation in written statement before the Tribunal had denied the injuries in its entirety.

¶56

In these circumstances, Sri.Vijay Kumar argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference by suitably modifying and enhancing it, considering the injuries suffered.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for the consideration of this Court is:

¶58

"Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation with interest at 9% per annum?"

¶59

My answer to the point for consideration is partly affirmative for the following reasons.

¶60

As contended by Smt. H.R. Renuka, there are no records prima facie produced, except those from

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Sanjeevini Hospital, to show injuries beyond those stated

¶64

in the records of Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan. The medical record of Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, is the first hospital where the injured was taken immediately after the accident. X-ray was taken, which indicates injuries only to the right foot. However, the medical records from Sanjeevini Hospital show several other injuries, including to the vertebrae, a fracture of the left acetabulum, and a fracture of the 10th rib on the right side of the chest.

¶65

The Doctor examined as PW2 has given an exaggerated account. Considering the evidence and the forceful arguments of the learned counsel for the Corporation, it appears the doctor exaggerated regarding injuries to the vertebrae, ribs, and other areas, as there is no mention of these in the first medical report.

¶66

In these circumstances, only the injuries suffered on the right foot are required to be considered. Looking at the compensation awarded under each head,

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

except for the loss of future income, all other heads are adequately compensated.

¶70

Although the compensation awarded under head 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side, the overall award does not call for interference, in view of adequate compensation awarded under other heads except 'loss of future income.'

¶71

Regarding compensation for loss of future income, the Tribunal failed to consider the income standard adopted by this Court while settling claims in Lok Adalat, which is at Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2013. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/-, which requires reconsideration.

¶72

So far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal, while citing judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has not given any specific reasons for awarding interest at the rate of 9%.

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

In these circumstances, and since this Court as

¶76

well as the Apex Court consistently awarding interest at the rate of 6% in accident claim cases, the interest is required to be reduced, as argued by Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel. Accordingly, it is reduced to 6% as against the 9% awarded by the Tribunal.

¶77

Since a higher income is now taken, the matter requires reconsideration of compensation amount.

¶78

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to re-determined compensation.

¶79

In summary, the total compensation re-

¶80

determined by this Court under various heads is as follows:

¶81

1.	Towards Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	80,000/-
2.	Towards Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	12,943/-
3.	Towards food nourishment and conveyance charges	:	Rs.	25,000/-
4.	Towards attendant Charges	:	Rs.	20,000/-
5.	Towards loss of amenities	:	Rs.	30,000/-
6.	Towards loss of future income (Rs.8,000X12X15X10%=Rs.)	:	Rs.	1,44,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,11,943/-

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

In all the appellant is entitled for a compensation of

¶85

Rs.3,11,943/- along with 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against the compensation of Rs.2,67,943/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.3,11,943 – 2,67,943) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶86

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i) Both the appeals are Allowed-In-Part ;

¶89

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in award dated 13.03.2015, in MVC.No.2010/2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur are modified;

¶90

iii) The appeal filed by the corporation is allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest from 9% to 6%.

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:44264 MFA No. 8705 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8496 of 2015

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

iv) The appellant – claimant is entitled for redetermined compensation of Rs.3,11,943/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

¶95

v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

¶96

vi) The respondent shall deposit the balance redetermined compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, except for the period of 168 days delay in filing appeal, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶97

vii) Upon deposit entire compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification.

¶98

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶99

TIN

¶100

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

T. Puttaswamy v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Puttaswamy v. Divisional Manager

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

S D Veena Vs Smt Jnanamathi

Ms Pushpa U B Vs Mr a C Prabhu Rajshekar

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Shabeer

Mr Hariparasad Shetty Vs Mr Steni Jayakara Karkada

Akbar Sab Vs the Managing Director

Smt Chondavva P E Vs Sri Murali v