Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Hanief

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:9.7.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5375/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶22

2 -

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.51,460/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION FROM RESPONDENT.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 2590/2013:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHRI MOHAMMED RIAZ S/O SRI K ALI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.3751, 9^TH MAIN KAVERI NAGAR BANASHANKARI II STAGE BANGALORE-560 070.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SMT. SRIVIDYA .G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T N VISHWANATH ., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C, SARIGE BHAVAN K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 9.7.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5375/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

IN MFA NO. 2875/2013:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

SARIGE BHAVAN K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶42

...APPELLANT

¶43

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

MOHAMMED HANIEF S/O K ALI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.99, YARAB NAGAR 7^TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE BANGALORE-560 070.

¶46

...RESPONDENT

¶47

(BY SMT. SRIVIDYA .G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T N VISHWANATH ., ADVOCATE)

¶48

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:9.7.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5374/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.72,300/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶49

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

A common order was passed by VI Additional Judge, Court

¶52

of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) in MVC Nos.5374/2003 and 5375/2003 on 09.07.2012.

¶53

4 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Appellant/KSRTC preferred MFA No.2874/2013 to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5375/2003 and also filed another appeal in MFA No.2875/2013 to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5374/2003 .

¶57

The petitioner before the Tribunal in

¶58

MVC No.5375/2023 preferred one more appeal in MFA No.2590/2013 for enhancing the compensation.

¶59

The Injured claimant had filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,20,000/and Rs.1,60,000 respectively. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted amounts of Rs.72,300/- and Rs.51,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶60

Aggrieved by the said order, KSRTC preferred appeals mainly contending that on 14.07.2003 accident occurred at 09.20 a.m. As per the evidence of the driver, the rider of the scooter dashed the bus from behind and caused the accident. They have examined the driver but it was not appreciated by the Tribunal properly. The owner and insurer of the bike were

¶61

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

not added as parties. As such, the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. In fact, the claim petition was remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to appreciate the entire evidence on record. But the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of only PW4 who is an interested witness. The KSRTC also examined another witness as RW2. But his evidence was not considered. Therefore, requested to set aside the order.

¶64

The claimant in his appeal mainly contended that reasonable amounts were not granted under the other heads. His income was taken as Rs.2,000/- per month though he stated that he was earning Rs.200/- per day as a scrap vendor and whole body disability was assessed as 10%. The amounts granted under other heads are meager. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶65

The petitioners examined PW1 and PW2, the rider and pillion rider, respectively. Also examined PW4, an eye witness. Respondents examined the driver of the vehicle as RW1 and also security in charge officer as RW2, who is not an eye witness. RW1 in his cross-examination admitted that accident occurred only due to his negligence. PW4 eyewitness in his

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

evidence stated that the driver of the bus without showing any indication or signal took a turn. As a result, hind portion of the bus was brushed against the front portion of the scooter and both the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that witness was standing near the Hosahalli gate at the time of the accident at a distance of 300 metres from the place of accident. In the course of cross examination of RW1, he himself admitted that accident occurred at Hosahalli gate turning. Hence, the Tribunal rightly considered the evidence of RW1 and also evidence of PW4 who is an eyewitness and held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. In fact, the charge sheet is also filed against him. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the bus.

¶69

Thus the appeals filed by the KSRTC in MFA No.2874/2013 and MFA No.2875/2013 have no merits and hence are hereby dismissed .

¶70

The claimant filed enhancement and stated that the petitioner was a scrap vendor and earning Rs.200/- per day

¶71

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

but he has not filed any income proof. The accident occurred in the year 2003. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his income as Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.2,000/- taken by the Tribunal. He was aged 23 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘18’. The petitioner met with an accident and sustained fracture lower end of the right radius which is grievous in nature and doctor assessed the disability at 29% to the right upper limb and 10% to the whole body, 1/3^rd of the same comes to 10%. Hence, this court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 10% instead of 3% taken by the tribunal. The loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 18 x 10%= Rs.64,800/- . He was admitted in

¶74

the hospital for a period of 9 days. Considering the nature of injury and period of hospitalisation, his occupation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000 /- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.15,000 /- for transportation , extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for

¶75

a period of 3 months due to the injury sustained in the accident. Therefore, Rs. 9,000/- is to be granted under the

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

head loss of income during laid up period. Tribunal granted Rs.2000/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed.

¶79

Thus in all, components awarded by this court

¶80

are as below,

¶81

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future earning capacity	64,800
2	Pain and suffering	40,000
3	Loss of amenities	20,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	15,000
5	Loss of income during laid down period	9,000
6	Future medical expenses	2,000
	Total	1,50,800

¶82

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is

¶83

enhanced from Rs.51,500/- to Rs.1,50,800 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶84

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27151 MFA No. 2874 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 2590 of 2013 MFA No. 2875 of 2013

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i. Appeal in MFA No.2590/2013 is allowed in part.

¶89

ii. The judgment and award dated 09.07.2012 passed in MVC No.5375/2023 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru City, is modified.

¶90

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,800/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.51,500/granted by the tribunal.

¶91

iv. Respondent/KSRTC has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.99,300/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶92