Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O Hanamappa Mayammanavar vs Shankarappa S/O Sabappa Jalihal on 6 November, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
MFA NO.20335/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN
MARUTI S/O HANAMAPPA MAYAMMANAVAR
R/O YARE HANCHINALTQ YELBURGADIST KOPPAL
...APPELLANT
(By SMT. PADMAJA TADAPATRI, AND S. S. BETURMATH,
ADVS.)
AND
1. SHANKARAPPA S/O SABAPPA JALIHAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUSR/O
KSRTC GADAG DEPOTGADAG
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC GADAG DIVISIONGADAG
3. IRAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA PATTED
AGE MAJOROCC OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARINGNO KA 26/ T 4755R/O HARLAPURTQ AND
DIST GADAG
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTDNEAR MINI
VIDHANSOUDHA GULBARGAISSUED BY GADAG
BRANCH
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri M.M.KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R2
SRI A.G.JADHAV, ADV. FOR R4. (THROUGH V.C.)
R1 SERVED. V/O DTD. 6/2/2013 APPEAL DISMISSED
AGAINST R3.)
2
THIS MFA U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.02.2008 PASSED IN
MVC NO.85/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, YELBURGA,
FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for hearing today, with the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
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 Motor Vehicles Act contending that shri.Maruti was traveling in KSRTC bus No.KA-26/F- 281 on 04.08.2004 and when the bus reached Adavi somapur village on Gadag-Koppal road, a tractor No. 3 KA-29/T-4755 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus and as a result said Maruti sustained grievous injuries. It is further contended that accident has occurred on the negligence of the KSRTC bus and driver of the Tractor.
4. It is further contended that petitioner was shifted to hospital and he has to spend huge sum of money and lost earning capacity and thus sought for awarding suitable compensation.
5. In response to the notice issued, all the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the petition averments which was adopted by the respondent No.1. respondent No.3 and 4 filed separate written Statements denying the claim petition averments in toto.
6. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
4
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in an accident on 04/08/2004 at about 08.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus No.KA-26/F-281 and tractor No. KA-29/T- 4755 on Koppal-Gadag road near Adavi Somapur village by the drivers of the said vehicles"
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation? and if so? And from whom?
3. To what order?
7. In order to prove the issues, the claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and Dr.Vishawesh Shirol as PW.2 and relied on documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.30. On behalf of the respondents there was no evidence placed on record.
8. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in 5 part in a sum of Rs.7,13,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that Tribunal grossly erred in allowing meager compensation and sought for suitable enhancement of the compensation by allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following point would arises for consideration:
Whether the quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal is just compensation?
12. The answer to the above point is partly in the negative for the following:
6
REASONS
13. In the case on hand appellant/claimant sustaining injuries mentioned in EX.P.6 and disability as per Ex.P.30 culled out in para Nos. 13 to 15 in the impugned judgment, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.08.2004 at about 4.30 pm involving KSRTC bus No.KA-26/F-281 and tractor No. KA-29/T- 4755 is not in dispute.
14. The doctor who issued Ex,P.30 clearly deposed before the court that injured took treatment in Govt. hospital, Gadag and thereafter in KIMS hospital Hubballi and then to his hospital. Tribunal believed the case of the claimant and assessed the disability factor at 15%. Therefore, on the head of loss of earning capacity Tribunal assessed sum of Rs.5,40,000/-. However, this Court noticed that having regard to the nature of injuries the compensation needs to reassessed as under:
7
Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.81,000/- Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
Loss of income during the 15,000/-
period of treatment Loss of conveyance, food, 35,000/-
nourishment and attendant charges
Loss of earning capacity on 5,40,000/-
account of permanent
disability
Total 8,21,000/-
In view of the forgoing discussion point is
accordingly answered and following order is passed.8
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and at the 9% p.a. on the compensation of Rs.7,13,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization.
KSRTC and Insurance Company of the tractor are directed to pay adjudged compensation in the ration of 50% each within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv