The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2022(MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. K.M. NAGESH, S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/A KURAHATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK. (BY SMT.B.N.MANJULA, FOR SRI. NAGARAJU R C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BASAVARAJU, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.830, K.20, 3RD CROSS, SUNNADAKERI, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 024. …APPELLANT 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, HANUMANTHANAGAR, MYSORE - 15. (BY SRI.G.LAKSHMEESHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2020 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO. 1016/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud (for short ‘the tribunal’) in M.V.C. No.1016/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 14.03.2017 at about 10.15 a.m., while he was riding the motor cycle - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 bearing registration No.KA-09-HK-3021 towards Nanjangud near Kalale Gate, a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-5123 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, right hand. He took treatment for the injuries sustained and a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3.1. In view of the injuries sustained and the medical expenses incurred, the claimant filed a claim petition, seeking compensation. 3.2. On service of notice, respondent No.1-driver did not file the statement of objections despite appearance and representing through his counsel. Respondent No.2 KSRTC denied the claim of the claimant and attributed negligence of the claimant for occurrence of the accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 3.3. On the basis of the material placed on record, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded total compensation of `6,18,182/- with interest @ 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realisation and also held respondent No.2 -Corporation to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the amount within two months. 3.4. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for claimant that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the claimant had contributed to the occurrence of the accident and has relied on the sketch, but has failed to take into consideration the IMV report in Ex.P-5 which states the damages to the KSRTC Bus on the extreme - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 right side and so also to the motor bike on the extreme right side. It is also contended that the tribunal has committed an error in not taking the proper income for assessment of compensation and so also under other heads, the compensation awarded is meager. Hence, he seeks enhancement by allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Corporation vehemently contends that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The assessment made by the Tribunal with regard to income and contributory negligence is justified based on the materials placed from the criminal prosecution case on the basis of the spot sketch and mahazar, where clearly reflects that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road and on either side, there is 25 feet available for either vehicles to swerve on left side of the road. Therefore, there is justification in fixing 25% contributory negligence as against the claimant. The learned counsel also contends that the tribunal has awarded suitable - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 compensation on all other heads and hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
appellant-claimant and learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Corporation. Having perused the impugned judgment and award, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained in the road traffic accident have been proved and established by production of Exhibits P-1 to P-22. Coming to the question of age, avocation, income, multiplier and the contributory negligence, it is relevant to see that the age of the claimant was 37 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident, the proper multiplier is '15' which is correctly taken by the Tribunal, but the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the claimant. The same requires to be enhanced to `11,000/- per month as per the notional chart of the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The claimant has got examined the Doctor as PW-2 who has opined disability to an extent of 48% to the right lower limb and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 also has stated that there is shortening of 3 cm. and arrived at disability of 16% to the whole body, which has been upheld by the Tribunal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The same is retained. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability would be `11,000/-x12x'15'x16%=````3,16,800/- as against `2,30,400/- awarded by the tribunal. 7. Towards pain and suffering, in view of the claimant being admitted for more than 60 days, this Court awards ````50,000/- under this head as against `40,000/- awarded by tribunal. 8. Towards medical expenses, `2,49,688/- awarded on actuals is retained. Future medical expenses at `30,000/- awarded by tribunal is retained. Incidental charges of `18,800/- is also retained, as they are just and reasonable. 9. Towards loss of income during laid-up period, the tribunal has awarded `42,294/-. This Court deems it appropriate to award ````60,000/- under this head. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 10. Towards loss of amenities and expectations and also conveyance, this Court awards ````50,000/- as against `5,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities and `2,000/- awarded towards conveyance by the tribunal.
Decision
11. In view of the above discussions, the appellant- claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of ````7,75,288/-. 12. Now, coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, though it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the entire negligence is to be fastened on the driver of the offending Bus as even according to the IMV report at Ex.P-5, the damages caused on the extreme right side of the Bus and on the right side of the motor bike clearly go to show that the Bus has moved to the extreme right side of the road and has hit the motor bike rather than the bike hitting the Bus in the middle of the road or middle of the Bus. This aspect is controverted by the learned counsel for the Corporation by contending that the claimant has admitted the aspect of him dashing against the Bus in the evidence adduced - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 before the matter in the Criminal Court and the accused driver of the Bus has been acquitted in the criminal prosecution. Therefore, she contends that 25% negligence attributed against the rider of the motor bike is justified and the same is to be retained. I am afraid the same cannot be acceded for the reason that the damages caused to the Bus is extreme right side so also to the motor bike on the extreme right side. But it is also a fact that the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and there was 25 feet space available on the left side of either of the vehicles. Therefore, both the vehicles could have swerved to the left side of the road. Under the circumstances, there could be a marginal negligence contributed by the rider of the motor bike. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the contributory negligence could be fixed on the claimant at 10% rather than 25%. 13. In view of the above discussions, the appellant- claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of `6,97,759/-, after deducting 10% towards contributory - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 negligence [i.e. `7,75,288/- (-) `77,528.80, rounded off to `77,529/-) as against `4,63,636/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Future loss of income due to disability Pain and sufferings Medical expenses Future medical expenses Incidental charges Loss of income during hospitalization Loss of amenities and expectations and conveyance Amount in ` 3,16,800-00 50,000-00 2,49,688-00 30,000-00 18,800-00 60,000-00 50,000-00 Less: 10% negligence TOTAL towards contributory 7,75,288-00 77,529-00 TOTAL 6,97,759-00 i) ii) Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part; The judgment and award dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud, in M.V.C.No.1016/2017 is modified; iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of `6,97,759/- as against `4,63,636/- awarded by the tribunal; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2886 MFA No. 1083 of 2022 iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent No.2-Corporation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) The entire enhanced compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant- claimant upon proper identification; vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28