Karnataka High Court
Managing Director, vs Shivamma W/O Ajjappa Chikkalavar, on 23 October, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
MFA NO.25489 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC NORTH WEST DIVISION,
GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR, HUBLI,
REPT. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC, RANEBENNUR DEPOT, RANEBENNUR,
DIS:HAVERI (OWNER OF THE SELF INSURER OF THE KSRTC
bearing NO.KA-27/F-67 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S C BHUTI, ADV.)
AND
1 . SHIVAMMA W/O UJJAPPA CHIKKALAVAR,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HIREBIDARI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,DIST: HAVERI.
1A. MANJAPPA S/O UJJAPPA CHIKKALAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
1B. BETTAPPA S/O. UJJAPPA CHIKKALAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O HIREBHIDARI VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GIRISH S HULMANI FOR R1(A);
NOTICE TO R1(B) SERVED)
-2-
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.75/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
RANEBENNUR AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.5,03,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PA. FROM
THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The KSRTC is in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 passed in MVC.No.75/2011 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act alleging that, on 20.07.2010 at about 12-45 p.m. original claimant namely Shivamma along with her daughter were coming from Kelagar Hospital, Ranebennur towards KSRTC bus -3- stand to catch the bus to go to their native place viz., Hirebidari village. As they were entering into the KSRTC bus stand, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA27/F-67 came from Harihar side towards Ranebennur KSRTC bus stand in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the original claimant and she sustained grievous injuries. Later on she was shifted to Government Hospital, Ranebennur, then she took treatment in the C.G.Hospital, Davanagere and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Thus, sought for compensation.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondent, respondent appeared and filed its statement of objections denying the petition averments in toto.
5. Based on the rival contentions, Tribunal raised three issues and recorded the evidence of the original claimant as PW.1 and the doctor who treated -4- the claimant as PW.2. On behalf of the respondent, one Anjaneya Talawar driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and on behalf of the claimants 71 documents were marked as EXs.P.1 to 71 and respondent did not produce any documentary evidence.
6. The Tribunal on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition under the following heads as under:
SL.NO. COMPENSATION AWARDED AMOUNT 1 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses 50,000/- 3 Attendant charges 25,000/- 4 Food and nourishment charges 25,000/- 5 Loss of income during the laid up 15,000/-
period 6 Loss of expectancy of life 1,00,000/- 7 Future medical expenses 30,000/-
8 Loss of amenities and discomfort 1,00,000/- 9 Disability 1,08,000/-
Total 5,03,000/-
-5-It is that judgment which is under challenge by the KSRTC.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.S.C.Bhute vehemently contended that the deceased was aged about 80 years and therefore, granting future loss of income at Rs.1,08,000/- is erroneous. He further contended that the doctor who examined as PW.2 is not a treating doctor and therefore, disability assessed at 60% by the Tribunal is erroneous.
8. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life are totally erroneous and sought for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.G.S.Hulamani appearing for the claimants supports the impugned judgment.
-6-
10. In view of the rival contention, the following point that would arises for consideration is as under:
Whether the adjudged compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and thus, called for interference?
11. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
12. There is no dispute that the original claimant sustained injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate, in the accident that has occurred near Ranebennur bus stand, Ranebennur, involving bus bearing No.KA 27/F-67. Towards the medical expenses, the trial Court has awarded 50,000/- Thereafter, the trial Court has awarded 1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort. Tribunal has taken 60% as disability factor. Tribunal has not taken into -7- consideration the settled legal principles while awarding the compensation as referred to supra.
13. When this aspect of the matter is posed to the learned counsel appearing for the claimants- Sri.G.S.Hulamani, he submits that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, She is left as deadwood and ultimately, during the pendency of the appeal she also succumbed to the injuries. Looking to the age of the injured on the date of the accident and also having regard to the injuries sustained by her, taking into facts and circumstances of the case on hand, without adverting to each head, this Court is of the opinion that reduction of Rs.2,50,000/- from the adjudged compensation would meet ends of justice.
14. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. -8- The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing compensation from Rs.5,03,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of the petition till realization.
The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court by the KSRTC shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Excess amount deposited, if any, is to be refunded to KSRTC under due identification.
Office is directed to draw modified award.
SD/-
JUDGE Vb/-