The Manager Vs Ume Shafiya

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2745 OF 2023 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2776 OF 2023 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4198 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶11

IN MFA No. 4108/2023

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE MANAGER KSRTC MAIN DEPOT, RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE - 570 001,

¶14

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(CUSTODIAN OF THE KSRTC BUS BEARING KA-09-F-5346)

¶16

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGARA, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027.

¶17

…APPELLANT

¶18

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 AND 1 OTHER

¶20

2 -

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

UME SHAFIYA

¶24

D/O SAYED ARIFF, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, S.R. PATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571438

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.385/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,54,555/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶28

IN MFA NO. 2745/2023

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SAYED ARIFF, S/O LATE SAYED DASTHAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, S R PATNA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571438.

¶31

...APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE MANAGER KSRTC KSRTC MAIN DEPOT,

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 AND 1 OTHER

¶36

3 -

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE-570001.

¶39

...RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.384/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

IN MFA NO. 2776/2023

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

UME SHAFIYA

¶45

D/O SAYED ARIFF AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, S R PATNA TALUK MANDYA DIST - 571 438

¶46

...APPELLANT

¶47

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y.,ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE MANAGER, KSRTC MAIN DEPOT, RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE - 570 001

¶50

...RESPONDENT

¶51

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023

¶53

AND 1 OTHER

¶54

4 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 385/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶57

IN MFA NO. 4198/2023

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

THE MANAGER KSRTC MAIN DEPOT RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP MYSORE 570 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGARA, K.H. ROAD BENGALURU 560 027

¶60

...APPELLANT

¶61

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶62

AND:

¶63

SAYED ARIFF S/O LATE SAYED DASTHAGIRI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGOLA HBOLI S R PATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 438

¶64

...RESPONDENT

¶65

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶66

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 AND 1 OTHER

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 384/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 9,81,098/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

¶69

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

¶70

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶71

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶72

Heard Sri.F.S.Dabali learned counsel who appears for the appellant in MFA No 4108/2023 and MFA No.4198/2023 who is also representing the respondent in other two matters. Also heard Sri.Sreenivasan M.Y learned counsel for the appellants in MFA No.2745/2023 and MFA No.2776/2023 who is appearing for the respondents in the connected two matters.

¶73

For the sake of convenience of discussion, the appellant in MFA No. 4108/2023 and the appellant in MFA No.4198/2023 will hereinafter be referred as KSRTC and

¶74

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 AND 1 OTHER

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

likewise the appellants in MFA No. 2745/2023 and in MFA No.2776/2023 as claimants.

¶77

While KSRTC has filed two appeals raising the grounds of absence of negligence on the part of its driver and that the compensation granted to the claimants is high and excessive, claimants have filed their respective appeals stating that the compensation granted is on lower side.

¶78

Challenge in these appeals is the common order that is passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC Nos.384/2018 and 385/2018 dated 19.10.2022.

¶79

The manner of happening of accident as projected by the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 08.12.2017 at about 08.15 p.m., while they were proceeding on a bike bearing registration No.KA-05-EX-8908, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-5346 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their bike due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. The claimants are father and daughter.

¶80

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶81

On the aspect of negligence, learned counsel who represents KSRTC submits that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent but not the driver of KSRTC. Ex-P5 which is the copy of IMV report clearly reveals that the motorcycle got damaged extensively. Likewise Ex-P4 copy of rough sketch reveals the place of accident. Both these documents clearly show that the rider of the bike was at fault and not the driver of the bus. Without considering these documents, the tribunal fastened liability upon KSRTC holding that the driver of KSRTC was at fault and thus the impugned order is unsustainable.

¶82

Per contra , learned counsel who represents the claimants submits that basing on the complaint given, police registered a case, investigated into and laid charge sheet against the driver of the bus and no material is produced by KSRTC to show that the rider of the bike was negligent and thus the order of the tribunal regarding the aspect of negligence is valid.

¶83

There is no denial of the fact that complaint was given against the driver of KSRTC basing on which police registered a case against the said driver. Also there is no denial of the fact

¶84

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶85

that police after due investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of KSRTC bus only. The rough sketch and the IMV report over which learned counsel who represents KSRTC placed much reliance were taken into consideration even by the Investigating Agency. Finally, Investigating Agency came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC only.

¶86

Discussing all these aspects the tribunal held that the claimants established that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus only the accident occurred. This Court therefore does not find any grounds for interference. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts of the case and came to a just conclusion.

¶87

Coming to quantum, so far as the claimant in MVC No.384/2018 is concerned, he sustained Hemorrhagic contusions with SAH in the right frontal and left temporal lobes along with sub-dural hemorrhage. He was also found to have sustained fracture of left ribs. By all the evidence produced he established that he took treatment as inpatient at two different intervals for a period of 20 days in total. As per the evidence of

¶88

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶89

CW-1, the consultant Neurosurgeon of Nagaraje Gowda Memorial Hospital, Mysore, neurological disorder was assessed by him and the disability is 58% in respect of whole body. The tribunal discussing at length in respect of the compensation that can be awarded towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, on subjecting the evidence of CW-1 to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,35,920/- as compensation. The tribunal concurring with the opinion of CW-1 in respect of disability, taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month and applying the appropriate multiplier 7 has come to such conclusion.

¶90

Having considered the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the evidence of CW-1, this Court is of the view that compensation thus granted is justifiable. Also the compensation granted under all other heads in respect of the claimant in MVC 384/2018 is concerned, the same is in accordance with the mandate of law and thus requires no interference.

¶91

12.So far as the claimant in MVC 385/2018 is concerned,

¶92

she sustained injury to right parietal bone extending to

¶93

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶94

temporal bone and communicated displaced fracture of right clavicle.

¶95

Basing on the evidence of CW-1, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 40% (35%+5%). Admittedly claimant took treatment as inpatient only for a period of 4 days. The finding of CW-1 is that he observed mild deficits in socio-adaptive functioning. This Court is of the view that the neuro-cognitive disability assessed by CW-1 i.e., 25% is exorbitant. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the evidence of CW-1, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body cannot be more than 20%.

¶96

Coming to the age, the tribunal basing on the wound certificate that is Ex.P-6, came to a conclusion that the age of the claimant as on the date of accident is 25 years. However, PW-1 that is the claimant during the course of cross examination admitted that she was born on 25.06.1990. The accident occurred on 08.12.2017. Thus, the claimant is aged around 27 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17 but not 18. Thus,

¶97

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:9570 MFA No. 4108 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2745 of 2023 MFA No. 2776 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶98

taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.11,000 per month, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as '17' and the disability in respect of whole body as 20%, the compensation which she is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.4,48,800 (11,000 x12x17x20%). However, tribunal granted a sum of Rs.9,50,400/- under the head loss of income towards permanent disability. Thus, the amount awarded in excess is Rs.5,01,600/-(9,50,400/- - Rs.4,48,800/-). The amount that is awarded by the tribunal under all other heads is justifiable.

¶99

Therefore, all the four appeals are disposed of with the following:-

¶100

ORDER

¶101