Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri Nagegowda on 29 May, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
MFA NOS.1973 OF 2016 C/W 1972/2016, 1981/2016,
1976/2016, 1978/2016, 1980/2016, 1979/2016,
1975/2016, 1971/2016, 1974/2016, 1977/2016,
7692/2015, 8343/2015, 5583/2016, 1195/2016,
8096/2015, 7633/2015, 8215/2016, 8216/2016,
8469/2016, 8470/2016
MFA.NO.1973/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI NAGEGOWDA
S/O SRI CHIKKAPUTTA HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT M.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
2
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA 4/16
SRI B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.4/16)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1011/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1972/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI PUTTASWAMY
S/O SRI KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
3
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.
IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA 5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.5/16
R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1030/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1981/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI PRABHAKAR
S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT ARAKAHALLY KOPPALU VILLAGE,
BASARALU HOBLI,
4
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA 4/16
SRI B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.4/16)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1010/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,90,520/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1976/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.SUNITHA H.S.
W/O SRI RAMESHA M.C.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
5
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR
PROP.IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA 4/16
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.4/16
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.978/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL DEPOSIT.
MFA.NO.1978/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.CHIKKAKALAMMA
W/O LATE HONNAGIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
6
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR
PROP.IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA.5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA 5/16
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1075/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,30,575/-
WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL DEPOSIT.
MFA.NO.1980/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAJESH H.N.
S/O SRI NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
7
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA 5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.5/16)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1077/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANDYA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,167/- WITH
INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
MFA.NO.1979/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O H.J.VEEREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
8
R/AT HONNEMADU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR
PROP.IMPLEADING APPLICANT AT R2 IN IA.NO.5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.5/16
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1076/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANDYA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
MFA.NO.1975/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI CHIKKA KEMPEGOWDA
S/O SRI KEMPEGOWDA,
9
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA.NO.5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R3 IN IA.NO.5/16)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1019/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,85,320/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1971/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ABHISHEK
S/O SRI PUTTASWAMY,
10
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR
PROP.IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R2 IN IA.NO.4/16
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1029/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.75,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1974/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.DODDATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
11
2. SRINIVASA H.K.
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SRI NINGARAJU H.K.
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. SRI RAMESH H.K.
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT M.HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L.RAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. FOR R5 IN
IA.NO.5/2016
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. FOR R6 IN
IA.NO.5/2016)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1028/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.4,43,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.1977/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.,
MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
12
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAMESH M.C.
LATE CHIKKABOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. SMT.SUNITHA H.S.
W/O SRI RAMESH M.C.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
3. DHANUSHREE M.R.
D/O RAMESH M.C.,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN
FATHER RAMESH M.C.
R/AT MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR PROP.
IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R4 IN IA 5/16
SRI B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR PROP.IMPLEADING
APPLICANT AS R5 IN IA.NO.4/16
R1 AND R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.979/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT, MANDYA,
13
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,85,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
PAYMENT.
MFA.NO.7692 /2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI PRABHAKAR
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O ARAKAHALLI KOPPALU VILLAGE,
BASARAL HOBLI, MANDYA. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1010/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT,
MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.8343/2015:
BETWEEN:
SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O H.J.VEEREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O HONNEMADU VILLAGE,
14
DUDDA-HOBLI, MANDYA - 571 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 40. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.8.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1076/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.5583/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
(K.S.R.T.C.) CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC
BANGALORE ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.LINGAMMA @ NINGAMMA
W/O SRI LINGARAJU U.L.
15
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14/2, MADANNA COMPOUND,
2ND CROSS, SRINIVAGILU,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA N.A. ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. R3
PROPOSED R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.5494/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS,.12,78,243/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
MFA.NO.1195 /2016:
BETWEEN:
RAJESH H N
S/O NINGE GOWDA @ LINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA
DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJA L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC MANDYA DIVISION,
I FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 401. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
16
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1077/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.8096/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH M.C.
S/O LATE CHIKKABOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SMT.SUNITHA H.S.
W/O SRI RAMESH M.C.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
3. DHANUSHREE M.R.
D/O RAMESH M.C.,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
WHO IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER FATHER APPELLANT NO.1
R/O MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENT
17
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.8.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.979/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
MANDYA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.7633/2015:
BETWEEN:
CHIKKA KEMPEGOWDA
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST,
DUDDA-HOBLI, MANDYA - 571 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1019/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
18
MFA.NO.8215/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SRI RAJESH H.N.
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
3. SOWMYA
D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. RAMYA
D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
5. SMT.CHIKKA KALAMMA
W/O HONNA GIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT M.HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS
19
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR PROP. R7
PROP.R6 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.8.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1141/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.14,14,000/- WITH FUTURE
INTEREST @ 9% P.A.
MFA.NO.8216/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA.
(OWNER-CUM-INSURER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-06-4-769)
NOW THROUGH
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT M.HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
PROPOSED R2 AND R3-SERVED)
20
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1142/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.6,71,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A.
MFA.NO.8469/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SRI RAJESH H.N.
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
3. SOWMYA
D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. RAMYA
D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
5. SMT.CHIKKA KALAMMA
W/O HONNA GIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT M.HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND,
21
MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1141/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.8470/2016:
BETWEEN:
SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT M.HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGANDURU POST,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND,
MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173
(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1142/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
22
AND JMFC, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.04.2018 COMING ON THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.Nos.1973/2016, 1972/2016, 1981/2016, 1976/2016, 1978/2016, 1980/2016, 1979/2016, 1975/2016, 1971/2016, 1974/2016, 1977/2016, 5583/2016, 8215/2016 and 8216/2016 have been preferred by the KSRTC, assailing the judgments and awards dated 29.6.2015, 25.6.2015, 29.7.2015, 19.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 29.6.2015, 25.6.2015, 29.6.2015, 19.8.2015, 18.4.2016, 17.8.2015, 17.8.2016 respectively, passed by the MACT, Mandya and Small Causes Court (SCCH-1), Bengaluru, whereas MFA.Nos.7692/2015, 8343/2015, 1195/2016, 8096/2015, 7633/2015, 8469/2016 and 8470/2016 have been preferred by the claimants, assailing the judgments and awards 23 dated 29.7.2015, 19.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 29.6.2015, 17.8.2016, 17.8.2016 respectively, passed by the MACT, Mandya, arising out of the same accident.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.6.2014 all the petitioners and the deceased were travelling in Bolero vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA.11/A5213 to attend the funeral ceremony at Haruvanahalli Village. When the said vehicle reached Mayasandra at about 8.00 a.m., a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA.06/F769 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Bolero vehicle, in which petitioners and the deceased were travelling, as a result of which, 24 inmates of the Bolero vehicle sustained injuries and out of them three succumbed to the injuries. As such, the claim petitions came to be filed before the concerned Tribunal claiming compensation.
4. In response to the notice issued, respondent- KSRTC appeared and filed their written statement denying the contents of the claim petitions by contending that the driver of the Bolero vehicle drove the same rashly and negligently with high speed and came from opposite direction, all of a sudden he overtook on going vehicle and in that process, he came to extreme right side of the road and dashed against the KSRTC bus. The accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle by its driver. They further contended that the concerned police in collusion with the driver of the Bolero vehicle have registered a false case to claim the compensation. They further contended that 25 the claim petitions are bad for non-joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the Bolero vehicle. On these grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
5. After hearing the parties to the lis and framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgments and awards. Assailing the same, the KSRTC has preferred the appeals and the claimants in some of the cases have also preferred the appeals.
6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the KSRTC are that the Bolero vehicle was overloaded as many as 19 persons were travelling in the said vehicle; the alleged accident has taken place only because of the reason that the driver could not control the vehicle because of overloading; the injured persons and the deceased 26 were travelling in the goods vehicle by violating the rules and if they ought not to have travelled in the said vehicle unauthorizedly there was no question of they being suffered with injuries and some persons succumbed to the injuries, as such, the petitioners have also contributed to the alleged accident and therefore they are not entitled to claim any compensation. He further contended that the photographs which are produced clearly indicate that beneath the bus a dead body was lying and the said bus was standing on the extreme left side of the road. The said fact clearly goes to show that the Bolero vehicle while overtaking another vehicle, came extreme right side of the road and hit to the bus and caused the accident. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and awards. He further contended that the application 27 filed to implead the driver, owner and the insurer of the Bolero vehicle came to be rejected by the Tribunal without any proper reasons, if they could be permitted to come on record, the truth would have been disclosed. The rejection of the said application itself is not in accordance with law. In that light, he requested to implead them to meet the ends of justice. He further contended that the compensation awarded in some of the cases is on the higher side and it is not based upon any records or evidence. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, then under such circumstances, proportionately the compensation has to be reduced which has been excessively awarded. He further contended that in MFA.Nos.8215/2016 and 8216/16, there is a duplication of award of compensation and hence the same requires to be reduced in accordance with law. On these grounds, 28 he prayed for allowing their appeals by setting aside the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Courts below.
7. Per contra, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the claimants have vehemently argued by contending that KSRTC made an attempt to implead the driver, owner and the insurer of the another vehicle which was involved in the accident. As the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal, now the said application cannot be entertained since the said matter has reached finality as no appeal or revision has been filed against the order of rejection of such application. They have further contended that sketch and other records clearly indicate the fact that the accident has taken place due to fault of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Tribunal by considering all the aspects, has rightly answered that the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent 29 driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. The KSRTC has not made out any grounds to set side the same. They have further contended that the compensation awarded in various claim petitions is on the lower side. By taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the petitioners and by taking the income of the deceased, the same requires to be enhanced proportionately by allowing the appeals filed by the claimants. On these grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the KSRTC.
8. As could be seen from the impugned judgments and awards, it was the contention of the claim petitioners that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, whereas it was the contention of the KSRTC that the driver of the Bolero vehicle was responsible for the alleged accident. As could be seen from the records, it is clear that a criminal case has been registered as 30 against the driver of the KSRTC bus and he has not filed any complaint though it was the contention of the KSRTC that the driver of the Bolero vehicle while overtaking another vehicle came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Even the records would disclose that though there were so many persons present near the place of accident, except the driver, no other person was examined by the KSRTC. If really the accident has taken place in the manner in which the KSRTC has contended, in that event definitely the driver of the KSRTC bus could have filed the complaint against the driver of the Bolero vehicle.
9. Though during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the KSRTC by drawing my attention to the photographs which were taken at the place of incident, has contended that the accident has taken place extremely on the left side of 31 the road, there is no scope for the driver of the bus to take further on left side and the Bolero vehicle came and hit to the bus itself shows that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Bolero vehicle. By relying upon the photographs, he has contended that the body was lying beneath the bus and when the accident has occurred, the person who was travelling in the Bolero vehicle fell down and died on the spot and there is no question of shifting or changing the place of accident by removing the vehicle. Though the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the KSRTC appears to be justifiable, when no complaint has been registered by the driver of the KSRTC bus and the criminal case has not been challenged before any competent Court and usually the sketch and photographs would be taken or drawn subsequently after sometime of the accident, there is every 32 possibility of moving the vehicles. In that context, I want to rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1900. In that light, the said contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC does not stand to any reason and the same is rejected. Hence, the applications filed by the KSRTC for production of additional documents in this regard cannot be considered at this stage. In that light, the said applications are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed.
10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for KSRTC that more than 19 persons were travelling in the goods vehicle. If they ought not to have travelled in the said vehicle, the question of occurring the accident in question does not arise at all. The said contention itself appears to be surprising and on the 33 face of it, is not acceptable. The words "ought not to have" used are not contemplated under the torts. Merely because the vehicle has been overloaded, the insurer or the KSRTC cannot be exonerated from its liability. If a person travels in a goods vehicle and the said vehicle meets with an accident, then under such circumstances, the insurer of the vehicle which comes from the opposite direction cannot be exonerated from liability only because that person travelled in a goods vehicle unauthorizedly. It is for the insurer of the said vehicle to take such contention to avoid the liability. Looking from any angle, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the KSRTC appears to be not acceptable and the same is rejected.
11. The leaned counsel appearing for the KSRTC has filed applications under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, in the appeals filed by the KSRTC for impleading driver, owner and the insurer of the Bolero vehicle. As could 34 be seen from the records, earlier similar application was filed before the Tribunal and the said application was heard and dismissed on merits. It is an admitted fact that against the said order of dismissal of the application, no revision or appeal has been preferred. Under such circumstances, I feel that question of considering such applications once again by this Court does not arise at all. In that light, the said applications also liable to be dismissed and they are dismissed.
12. The next contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC is that in some of the cases the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1028/2014, against which MFA.No.1974/2016 is filed by the KSRTC, it was the case of the claimants that deceased was hale and healthy. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by 35 doing agriculture and milk vending. In order to substantiate the said fact, the claimants have produced RTC extracts at Ex.P15 and the certificate issued by Milk Producers' Co-operative Society, M.Honnenahalli at Ex.P16. However, without accepting the said documents, by taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor and after applying the proper multiplier of '9' has awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency; an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the conventional heads; and Rs.19,000/- towards medical expenses. On perusal of the said judgment and award, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. It is neither exorbitant nor excessive. In that light, the contention of the learned counsel for the 36 KSRTC in this behalf does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same rejected.
13. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1029/2014, against which MFA.No.1971/2016 is filed by the KSRTC, the claimant has sustained multiple fracture as per NCCT brain study and the doctor has also opined that Injury No.3 is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. Subsequently, the claimant took treatment in NIMHANS Hospital. Ex.P9, the emergency case record for head and spine trauma issued by NIMHANS Hospital reveals hairline fracture of middle frontal bone. Though the claimant contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/- as an agriculturist, in the absence of any material to show the said fact, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- globally with interest at 9% per annum. Against the said judgment and award the claimant has not preferred any appeal 37 for enhancement of the same. In that light, the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side is not sustainable and the same is rejected.
14. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1019/2014, against which the KSRTC has preferred MFA.No.1975/2016, the claimant has sustained subgaleal scalp haematoma left fronto parieto temporal and right parietal region. He has also sustained fracture of 4 ribs on right side. He was admitted in the hospital from 9.6.2014 to 16.6.2014. Keeping in view the aforesaid injuries and the period of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,85,320/- under various heads. Even the doctor who came to be examined as PW.4 has assessed the disability of the claimant to the extent of 10% to the whole body. But, the Tribunal 38 by taking disability at 8% and by taking the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month has awarded the compensation. Challenging the said judgment and award, the claim petitioner has filed MFA.No.7633/2015 for enhancement of the compensation.
15. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contentions taken up by the claimant as well as the KSRTC. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor- PW.4, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads appears to be just and proper. Neither the KSRTC has made out any case to reduce the compensation nor the claimant has made out any grounds to enhance the same. In that light, the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, are hereby rejected.
39
16. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1076/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1979/2016, the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture of base 4th metacarpal with displacement and the said injury is grievous in nature. He was treated in the hospital as inpatient from 9.6.2014 to 13.6.2014. The doctor- PW.7 has assessed the disability at 28% to right upper limb. The documents at Exs.P31 and P26 would disclose the fact that he was admitted in the hospital during the aforesaid period. But without accepting the said documents, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant has preferred MFA.No.8343/2015 contending that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the same.
40
17. On going through the records, it indicates that there is comminuted fracture of base 4th metacarpal with displacement and the said injury is grievous in nature. He was treated in the hospital as inpatient from 9.6.2014 to 13.6.2014. In that light, he might have incurred some expenses for the purpose of attendant, nutrition, diet and he might have also taken rest for some more time. In that light, if globally an amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,000/- after deducting the same, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC cannot be accepted and in so far as the contention of the claimant-appellant in 41 MFA.No.8343/2015 for enhancement of the compensation requires to be allowed.
18. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1077/2014 against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1980/2016, the claimant has sustained fracture of his right hand, neck, back and other parts of the body. On examination, it revealed that bone of right hand was fractured and the claimant was treated as outpatient for 15 days and he was advised to take bed rest for three months. Having taken into consideration the wound certificate as per Ex.P19 and the evidence of the doctor-PW.6, the Tribunal in all has awarded an amount of Rs.16,167/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant has also preferred MFA.No.1195/2016. The records including the wound certificate at Ex.P19 would disclose that the claimant 42 has sustained fracture of right hand, bone and he has taken treatment as outpatient for a period of 15 days. Having regard to the fracture and injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment taken by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. In that light, if an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period; Rs.1,167/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant, diet and other incidental charges, in all Rs.41,167/- is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Since no disability has been assessed by the doctor and the injuries are simple in nature, no compensation needs to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities and discomforts. In that light, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.41,167/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.16,167/- after deducting the same, the claimant is 43 entitled to additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
19. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1075/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1978/2016, the claimant has sustained dislocation of right shoulder and fracture of femur. She was admitted in the hospital for 15 days as inpatient and she was advised rest for three months. In order to substantiate her case, she produced wound certificate as per Ex.P10 and also got examined the doctor who treated her as PW.6 who has deposed that there is comminuted fracture of lateral end of right clavicle with displacement and he assessed the disability to the extent of 45% to the right upper limb and 15% to the whole body. Taking into consideration the said injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has 44 awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,575/- under various heads with interest at 9% per annum.
20. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, having regard to the injuries and the disability suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the KSRTC has not made out any grounds to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
21. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC No.978/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1976/2016, the claimant has sustained injury to her face, head, hands, both cheeks, nose and legs and she took treatment for one week. The wound certificate produced by the claimant 45 at Ex.P4 would disclose that the injuries suffered by her are simple in nature. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- globally including medical expenses with interest at 9% per annum. The same appears to be just and proper. As against the said judgment and award the claimant has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded. In that light, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
22. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1010/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1981/2016 and the claimant has preferred MFA.No.7692/2015, the claimant has sustained displaced fracture of distal 1/3rd of right humerus, fracture of right 5th metacarpal bone. In order to substantiate the said fact the claimant has produced the wound certificate as per 46 Ex.P5. The records would indicate that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 9.6.2014 and discharged on 30.6.2014 and he was operated on 14.6.2014. The Orthopedic Surgeon of KIMS Hospital who came to be examined as CW.1 has assessed the disability at 45% to the right humerus and 15% to the whole body. CW.1 has also deposed that about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- is required for removal of implants and screws. CW.2-Dr.M.S.Suresh of NIMHANS Hospital has deposed that he has given treatment to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the claimant has suffered disability at 40% to the whole body. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, since the claimant has contended that he was an agriculturist owning 5 acres of land and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But in the absence of any documents to show the income, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month 47 and disability at 12% has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant charges; Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and future earning and discomfort; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings during laid up period; and Rs.1,55,520/- towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability, in all Rs.3,90,520/- with interest at 9% per annum.
23. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, admittedly as the accident is of the year 2014, Rs.8,500/- is the yardstick which is being adopted before the Lok Adalath for settlement of cases. In that light, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,20,320/- (8500x12x18x12/100) towards loss of future earning 48 capacity; Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomforts; Rs.45,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period; and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant, diet and other incidental charges. The records also disclose that the claimant has spent an amount of Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the said amount of Rs.90,000/- is granted under the said head. In that light, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,50,320/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,90,520/- after deducting the same, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.59,800/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
24. As could be seen from the judgment and award in MVC.No.1030/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1972/2016, the claimant lost 49 five teeth. Even five teeth were shaky. He also sustained injuries to his face, nose, lips. He was admitted as inpatient in A.C.Giri Hospital, B.G.Nagar. X-rays reports show that he sustained fracture of maxillary region and fracture of nasal bone. Subsequently he was operated, wires were inserted to the jaw and other portions. The claimant also got examined the doctor as PW.3 who has deposed that claimant was admitted in his hospital on 9.6.2014 and was discharged on 14.6.2014. But the doctor has not assessed the disability. It was the contention of the claimant before the Tribunal that he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But in order to prove the same, he has not produced any material. In the absence of such material, the Tribunal by taking notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month has awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.
50
25. Though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for KSRTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, I feel that the said amount of compensation appears to be just and proper and there are no good grounds to reduce the same. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC in this regard fails.
26. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1011/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1973/2016, the claimant has sustained injury to soft tissue over left hip and was admitted in the hospital from 9.6.2014 to 18.6.2014. In order to substantiate the said fact, he has produced wound certificate at Ex.P8 which also reveals that he was in the hospital during the aforesaid period. Having considered the injuries 51 sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- globally with interest at 9% per annum. I feel that the said amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference by this Court so as to reduce the same.
27. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.979/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.1977/2016, wherein a four years' child succumbed to the injuries due to the accident in question. Keeping in view the death of the minor child, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 9% per annum as total compensation in favour of the claimants after deducting Rs.50,000/- already paid by the KSRTC towards interim compensation as deposed by RW.1. However, being not satisfied with the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants 52 have also preferred MFA.No.8096/2015 by contending that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. It is now well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of death of a minor child, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month is the yardstick to be taken into consideration as the deceased was a non-earning member and the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '15'. In that light, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of dependency and an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-. Since the Tribunal has already granted a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- after deducting the same, the claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.70,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
28. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.5494/2014, 53 against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.5583/2016, the claimant has suffered traumatic brain injury; left thalamic contusion; bilateral intraventricular bleed; right clavicular fracture; right scapular fracture; bilateral pneumothorax, right 4th, 5th, 6th ribs fracture; bronchial asthama. In order to substantiate the said fact, the claimant has produced the discharge summary at Ex.P5 and inpatient record at Ex.P8, which disclose that the claimant was admitted as inpatient from 9.6.2014 to 8.7.2014. In order to prove the disability, the claimant got examined Dr.S.Ramachandra as PW.4 and Dr.Bharath R as PW.5, who have deposed that the claimant has suffered traumatic brain injury and other injuries for which ICD (intercostals drainage tube) is inserted on the right side and the orthopedic injuries were treated conservatively. They have further deposed that the claimant was examined on 18.2.2016. because of the 54 complaint made by the claimant and considering the said difficulties as well as on radiological examination, the permanent residual physical disability to the extent of 39.2% to the right shoulder, girdle and to the extent 13% to the whole body has been assessed. During the course of cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that OPD card was prepared at the time of assessing the disability and he assessed the disability on 18.2.2016. As per the evidence of PW.5 who is a Neurosurgeon of KIMS Hospital Bengaluru, the claimant sustained the functional disability at 40%. During the course of cross-examination, PW.5 admits that claimant came to the hospital only for follow-up treatment. In that light, the Tribunal by taking notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month, since the claimant has failed to prove that he was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/- per month by mason work and Rs.9,000/- per month by vending the milk, applying 55 the proper multiplier of '14' and disability at 25% has awarded Rs.2,94,000/- towards loss of income on account of disability. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomforts; Rs.30,000/- towards attendant, nutrition, diet and other incidental charges; Rs.42,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period; and Rs.8,02,243/- towards medical expenses, in all Rs.12,78,243/- with interest at 9% per annum.
29. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the disability assessed by the doctors-PWs.4 and 5 and on careful consideration of the other material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. Neither it is exorbitant nor excessive. Hence, the contention of the learned 56 counsel for the KSRTC is not sustainable in law and the same is rejected.
30. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1141/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.8215/2016, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. But the claimants have not produced any material to substantiate the said fact. Hence, in the absence of any such material, the Tribunal by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, after deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of '14' has awarded an amount of Rs.13,44,000/- towards loss of dependency. Though under the normal circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justifiable, in the absence of proof of documents to show that the 57 deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the year of accident and the wages prevailing during the said year. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2014 and Rs.8,000/- to Rs.8,500/- is yardstick which is being adopted before the Lok Adalat for settlement of cases. In that light, if notional income at Rs.8,500/- is taken, after deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of '14', the claimants are entitled to Rs.11,42,400/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.30,000 towards transportation; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection; and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. But in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, 58 reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,12,400/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.14,14,000/- with interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. In that light, the contention raised by the KSRTC appears to be justifiable and the same deserves to be allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.8469/2016 against the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1141/2014 is liable to be dismissed and MFA.No.8215/2016 filed by the KSRTC is liable to be allowed by modifying the impugned judgment passed in MVC.No.1141/2014.
31. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1142/2014, against which the KSRTC has filed MFA.No.8216/2016, the claimant has sustained chest fracture of 3rd to 6th 59 left ribs, spine burst fracture of T12, L1, vertebra with 75% of compression, fracture of D5, D12 and L1 vertebra, fracture of 5th metacarpal bone and she was admitted in Adichunchunagiri Hospital from 9.6.2014 to 18.6.2014. In order to substantiate the disability, claimant got examined the doctor as PW.2 who has deposed that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability of 28% to the whole body. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.18,000/- towards medical bills; Rs.6,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges; Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during treatment; Rs.4,53,600/- towards loss of future income due to permanent disability; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of future amenities, 60 discomfort and inconvenience; and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, in all Rs.6,71,600/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being not satisfied with the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has also filed MFA.No.8470/2016 seeking enhancement of the same.
32. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of future income due to permanent disability appears to be on the higher side. When loss of future income has been assessed, then under such circumstances granting of another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life does not arise at all. Even the Tribunal has assessed the disability on the higher side when the doctor has deposed that the total permanent disability of both upper and lower limbs is to the extent of 85%, that too when the claimant has 61 sustained fracture of 3rd to 6th ribs and fracture of 5th metacarpal bone. In that light, the discussion held by the Tribunal is not proper. Even as could be seen from the judgment and award, though the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month, it added 50% towards future prospects which is not warranted. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2014 and Rs.8,500/- is the yardstick which is being adopted before the Lok Adalat for settlement of cases. Even assuming that the claimant has suffered 85% disability to the upper and lower limbs if 1/3rd of the same is taken, it comes to 28%. In that light, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,28,400/- (8500x12x15x28/100) as against Rs.4,53,600/- towards loss of future income due to permanent disability; Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.18,000/- for medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant, diet and nutrition and other 62 incidental charges; Rs.20,000/- under the head of future medical expenses; Rs.26,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period; and Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of amenities and discomforts. In that light, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,92,400/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.6,71,600/- with interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.
33. In view of the above, MFA.No.8216/2016 filed by the KSRTC is liable to be partly allowed and MFA.No.8470/2016 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
34. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC has contended that though the applications filed by them to implead the 63 driver, owner and the insurer of another offending vehicle came to be dismissed before the Tribunal, apportionment of the compensation may be made by this Court, in view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court that the driver of the KSRTC bus was solely responsible for the accident in question, the said contention for apportionment of the compensation, does not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.
In view of the detailed discussion held by me above, MFA.Nos.1974/2016, 1971/2016, 1975/2016, 1979/2016, 1980/2016, 1978/2016, 1976/2016, 1981/2016, 1972/2016, 1973/2016, 1977/2016 and 5583/2016 filed by the KSRTC and MFA.Nos.7633/2015, 8469/2016 and 8470/2016 filed by the claimants are dismissed being devoid of merits.
64
MFA Nos.8215/2016, 8216/2016 filed by the KSRTC and MFA.Nos.8343/2015, 1195/2016, 7692/2015, 8096/2015 filed by the claimants are partly allowed. The judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal/Court below in MVC Nos.1076/2014, 1077/2014, 1010/2014, 979/2014, 1141/2014, 1142/2014 are modified to the extent as indicated above.
KSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation awarded by this Court with interest thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.
Award shall be drawn accordingly.
The amount in deposit before this Court if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal. 65
In view of disposal of these appeals, I.A.No.2/16 in MFA.1973/2016 is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-