DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC) v. GEETHA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in MVC.No.1366/2017 and MVC.No.1367/2017 dated 17.08.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Hassan.

#2. MFA No.1249/2020 is filed by the respondent in MVC.No.1366/2017 and MFA Crob.No.152/2022 is filed by the petitioner in the same petition, being the cross objector.

#3. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the tribunal for convenience.

#4. The brief and relevant facts leading up to this appeal and cross objection are as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR Claimant in MVC.No.1366/2017 by name Geetha, D/o. Siddhesha, filed the claim petition before the tribunal, stating that on 20.06.2016 at about 01.00 p.m., herself and other passengers were travelling in KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-4186 to go to Sanenahally Village. When the said bus approached near Tank bund of Sanenahally Village, Halebeedu Hobli, the driver of the said bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and because of the same, the bus turtled down on the left side of the road, resulting in an accident. The claimant Geetha sustained grievous injuries on left shoulder, head and other parts of the body. She was taken to the Janapriya Hospital, Hassan for treatment. She took treatment as inpatient for 10 days in the hospital and spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, she prays to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

#5. The learned Tribunal on conclusion of the trial, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- together with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, fastening liability on the respondent-KSRTC. The said claimant is in cross appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation alleging, that whatever the compensation so awarded under various heads is on lower side and meager. She prays to enhance the compensation.

#6. The KSRTC, by filing its appeal, has challenged the award stating that the tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.7,500/- p.m., and it is without any basis. It is not justified in relying on oral evidence of the doctor. It is stated that, the doctor- PW3 has assessed disability to the extent of 15% to the left upper limb by presuming the whole body disability. The tribunal has wrongly calculated the 4% permanent disability to the claimant, thereby, awarded compensation of Rs.64,800/- towards loss of future income due to disability, which is incorrect. It is further urged that, PW3 has produced Ex.P13, a case sheet of Janapriya Hospital - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR and there is no mention with regard to the treatment administered on the claimant. The wound certificate and discharge summary shows that, nature of injury sustained and while assessing the disability, PW3 has not properly assessed the disability by following the proper procedure of assessing disability. It is further stated that, award of compensation towards pain and suffering and medical expenses is very much on higher side. It is urged that awarding of interest is also on the higher side. Therefore, it is prayed by the KSRTC in MFA.No.1249/2020 to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned award by reducing the compensation so awarded.

#7. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record.

#8. So far as accident is concerned, that took place on 20.06.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., in which the claimant was traveling with the other passengers is admitted. There is no serious dispute with regard to the said accident that on that day, driver of the respondent-KSRTC - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4186 made the said vehicle to turtle down near tank bund of Sanenahally Village, Halebeedu Hobli. In the said accident, the claimant and other inmates of the bus sustained injuries. Therefore, the findings of the tribunal with regard to the nature of the said accident in the manner alleged by the petitioner, has attained finality.

#9. The learned Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence, placed on record by the claimant and on hearing both the sides, has awarded the compensation to the present claimant as under: "Towards pain and sufferings Towards Medical expenses Towards nourishment, conveyance charges diet, attendant food, Towards loss of future earning capacity Loss of income during laid up period Towards loss of amenities - - - - - - Rs. 15,000.00 Rs. 22,000.00 Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 64,800.00 Rs. 3,750.00 Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.1,20,550.00" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR

#10. It is a grievance of the KSRTC/appellant that, as the claimant has sustained the dislocation of her shoulder; there would not have been any disability in the manner stated by PW3-doctor. Therefore, he submits that, whatever the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning capacity is on higher side. He further submits that, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of Rs.7,500/- and based upon that, by applying the disability to the extent of 4% to the whole body, has awarded the said compensation towards loss of future earning capacity. He further submits that, towards other heads also, the award of compensation is on higher side. He prays to set aside the impugned award.

#11. As against this submission, the counsel for the claimant submits that, rightly the tribunal assessed the disability to the extent of 4% to the whole body. But, however, he submits that, as she is a lady, this disability comes in the way of her day to day activities. As the accident has occurred in the year 2016, there must be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR proper assessment of the income of the claimant and compensation towards various heads have to be enhanced. Therefore, the claimant has filed the cross objection.

#12. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides, the only points that arises in this appeal: (i) Whether the judgment and award passed by the tribunal requires interference by this Court?

#13. PW1 being the claimant, by name Geetha D/o. Siddhesha, had come before the tribunal and deposed about the accident. She states that, immediately after the accident she was shifted to Janapriya Hospital, Hassan for treatment, there she underwent surgery. She was in the said hospital as inpatient for 10 days. According to her, she has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. She further states that, prior to the accident, she was doing agriculture and was earning Rs.15,000/- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR p.m. Because of the accidental injuries, she is suffering every day. She is taking help of the others for her day to day activities. But in the cross-examination states that, she has studied up to degree. In her cross examination at page No.3 in categorical terms, she states that, when the accident took place, she was studying and was a student in degree course. Thus, this admission of PW1 that she was a student when the accident took place falsifies that, she is an agriculturist by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Further, she has examined PW3- Dr.Abdul Basheer. According to PW.3, When claimant was admitted in the hospital, on clinical examination, he found the following injuries on her person as under: "Compression facture t12 Vertebra"

#14. As per the doctor's evidence, the claimant Geetha suffered Acromio clavicular dislocation shoulder and there is also abrasion on the forehead. He opines that, the said injury No.1 is grievous in nature and other injury is simple in nature. She was discharged from - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR the hospital on 23.06.2016 with an advice to have a conservative treatment as an out patient. Again on

24.05.2019, he examined her and noticed the following physical impairments (i)Left shoulder and elbow movement restricted and painful; (ii) Not able to support and get up; (iii) X-ray taken and it shows fracture slightly united. Thus, according to PW3, on assessment of disability, she has sustained the disability to the extent of 15% to the left upper limb. PW3 was cross-examined by the respondent. It is stated that, claimant took a treatment as inpatient for 3 days only and thereafter, for the first time this PW.3 has examined her on 24.05.2019 for assessment of disability. He denied other suggestions. Though claimant says that, she has taken treatment for 10 days as inpatient, but discharge summary so produced as well as other documents show that, she has taken treatment as inpatient for only 3 days. The wound certificate-Ex.P7 shows fracture stated supra sustained by the claimant in the said road traffic accident. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR Though, she states that, she has spent substantial money towards medical expenses, but her own discharge bill shows that, at the time of discharge she has paid Rs.14,750/- towards medical expenses. In addition to the said medical expenses, she also must have spent some of other expenses towards other expenses like nutrition, conveyance charges etc, as an outpatient. This possibility cannot be ruled out.

#15. On assessment of the evidence placed on record by the claimant, as well as defence of KSRTC, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as aforesaid. It has awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.22,000/- towards medical expenses, so also towards diet, food nourishment and attendant charges Rs.5,000/-. In my opinion, whatever the compensation awarded under these aforesaid heads, is just and proper, as she has suffered lot because of these injuries. So far as loss of future earning capacity is concerned, the tribunal has assessed - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR her income at Rs.7,500/. According to her own evidence, when the said accident took place, she was still a student having the bus pass used to travel in a bus to attend her college.

#16. As claimant has suffered dislocation under medical jurisprudence, dislocation and fracture both involve bone or joint injuries, they are distinct conditions. A fracture is a break or crack in a bone, while a dislocation is a displacement of a bone from its normal joint position. It occurs under following: (i) A dislocation occurs when the bones at a joint are forced out of their normal alignment. (ii) This can happen due to a sudden impact or injury, often involving significant force. (iii) Symptoms include severe pain, visible deformity and inability to more the joint. There is no evidence either from the mouth of PW.1 or from PW3 doctor about the above symptoms. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR

#17. Taking into consideration the said income, the tribunal has assessed the disability as per the doctor's evidence at 4% and has awarded the compensation of Rs.64,800/-. She is a lady. It is submitted that, now she is married. This disability as stated by the doctor and also spoken by PW1 by the claimant definitely will come in the way of her day to day household activities as she is the housewife now. It may cause inconvenience to perform her day to day activities. Therefore, whatever the disability so assessed by the criminal, is just and proper. It requires no interference by this Court. As rightly held by the tribunal, there is a loss of income during laid up period. This injury must have made the claimant to keep herself idle for same period. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.3,750/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. In my opinion, it is just and proper. So also, towards loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- is awarded. She being a lady as stated supra with all frustration, inconvenience, discomfort the claimant has to survive. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR Therefore, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper.

#18. Therefore, in view of all these findings of the tribunal with regard to the award of compensation under the various heads, this Court feels that, no interference is required. However, the tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the amount so awarded to the claimant. No reason being assigned for awarding 9% interest. There is no finding with regard to that, why the tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the same. Therefore, to the extent of awarding interest at 9%, interference is very much required and interest @ 6% is to be awarded on the compensation so awarded.

#19. Hence, the appeal filed by the KSRTC in MFA.No.1249/2020 deserves to be allowed-in-part, whereas MFA Crob.No.152/2022 is to be dismissed. However, there shall be modification of interest awarded. The claimant in MVC.No.1366/2017 is held entitled for compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- together with interest at - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization including interim compensation, if any awarded.

#20. Accordingly, pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the KSRTC in MFA.No.1249/2020 is allowed-in-part, whereas, MFA Crob.No.152/2022 filed by claimant is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1366/2017 dated

17.08.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, is hereby modified only in respect of award of interest i.e., reduced from 9% to 6%. (iii) The Cross-objector-claimant is held entitled total compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:29157 MFA No. 1249 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 152 of 2022 HC-KAR (iv) Appellant-KSRTC shall deposit compensation amount together with interest @6% before the tribunal within six weeks from the date of judgment. (v) Sofar regarding apportionment, release of the amount is concerned remains unaltered. (vi) The statutory deposit if any, deposited by the KSRTC (appellant) shall be transferred to the tribunal forthwith. (vii) The excess interest amount deposited by the KSRTC be refunded. (viii) There be modified accordingly. (ix) No order as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK