Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Srinivasa Murthy G K on 12 June, 2017
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
MFA.NO.6149/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 27,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE - 27. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
SRI.SRINIVASA MURTHY.G.K
S/O LATE KAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.145, VINAYAKANAGAR,
GOURIBIDANUR - 561 208,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. T.NAGAMANI,
W/O G.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. G.S.ANANDKUMAR,
S/O G.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2
3. G.S.ASHOKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4. G.S.ARUNKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
LRs NO.1 IS WIFE OF DECEASED
2 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF
G.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY
AND ALL ARE R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
GOWRIBIDANUR,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R.1 TO R.4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2012 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6625/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,69,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity "the KSRTC") filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 05-03-2012 passed in MVC No.6625/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3 Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) fastening liability on them to compensate the claimants.
2. The respondent-G.K.Srinivasa Murthy filed a claim petition contending that on 17-04-2010 while he was proceeding in a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-07/F-849 from Chikkaballapura to Gouribidanur near Eradimmanna Kanive, the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road-side rock. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at Chikkaballapur, after the first aid, he was shifted to Bengaluru for CT scan Diagnosis at North City C.T.Scan and Diagnostics. Thereafter he was shifted to Manasa Hospital at Chikkaballapur. In the claim petition, it was contended that the claimant was working as a Revenue Inspector at City Municipal Council at Chikkaballapur and earning Rs.13,900/- p.m. Due to the injuries he had 4 sustained, he could not work as he was working prior to the accident. He has taken voluntary retirement from service on 12-07-2010. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondent-KSRTC entered appearance and filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver. Near Ghat-Section, in a deep curve, while some buffaloes suddenly came across the road, in order to avoid the buffaloes, the driver took the bus to the left side. As a result of which, the bus dashed against the road-side rock and toppled down, due to that, passengers in the bus including G.K.Srinivasa Murthy sustained injuries. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. During the pendency of the claim petition, G.K.Srinivasa Murthy died on 07-09-2011, thereafter his wife and children came on record as legal representatives of the deceased to prosecute the matter. The son of the deceased 5 G.K.Srinivasa Murthy got himself examined as P.W.3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondent-KSRTC, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
5. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus the accident occurred and the deceased had sustained injuries to head and ears. Subsequently he died on 07-09-2011. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 57 years, the legal representatives who had come on record are entitled for compensation. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- p.m., deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenditure, applying the multiplier 9 since he was aged about 57 years at the time of death, awarded a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure; and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the 6 Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
6. The KSRTC being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed this appeal mainly contending that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The accident occurred on 17-04-2010 and G.K.Srinivasa Murthy died on 07-09-2011 i.e. one year five months after the accident. No document has been produced to show that there is nexus between the death and the injuries he has sustained in the accident. Further, no document has been produced to show that he was under
the prolonged treatment after the accident till his death. He had sustained two injuries, out of which, one injury is simple in nature and CT Scan has been done which shows that there is no damages to the brain and other parts. Even after the accident, the deceased continued in his job, however, he took voluntary retirement on 12-07-2010. As per the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1864 in 7 the case of UTTAM KUMAR v/s MADHAV AND ANOTHER, the claim petition filed by the person who has sustained injuries in a Motor Accident, cannot be prosecuted by his Legal Representatives, on such person's death occurring not as a result of consequent of bodily injuries sustained in a Motor Accident and sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri.Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the accident occurred on 17-04-2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus and the deceased had sustained injuries. In view of the accidental injuries to the head and other parts of the body, he could not continue his work as Revenue Inspector at City Municipal Council, Chikkaballapur and he took voluntary retirement on 12-07-2010. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and 8 documentary evidence let in by the parties had awarded just and fair compensation. Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
9. The only dispute in this appeal is whether deceased G.K.Srinivasa Murthy died due to the injuries he had sustained in the road traffic accident on 17-04-2010.
10. The wound certificate which was produced and marked as Ex.P5 clearly discloses that deceased G.K.Srinivasa Murthy sustained two injuries. Out of them, injury No.1. i.e. fresh bleeding from the left ear is simple in nature. Injury No.2 i.e. lacerated wound over the left shoulder; injury to left eye and head. For the injury to eye he had taken treatment at Retina Institute of Karnataka and has undergone laser 9 treatment to one eye. Insofar as head injury is concerned, CT scan of the brain has been done at North City CT Scan and Diagnostics. The doctor had opined that the sections of Supratentorial brain do not reveal any area of altered tissue density in the cortical or while matter substance. There is no evidence of SOL/bleed/infarct. The ventricular system is normal. Both internal auditory meati are normal. There is no serious injury to head. The son of the deceased had given evidence as P.W.3, whereby he had clearly admitted that his father had taken treatment as outpatient and he was not admitted to any hospital for the treatment. No material has been produced to show that he was under the treatment from the date of accident i.e. from 17-4-2010 till his death i.e. on 07-09-2011. The medical bills produced by the claimants clearly disclose that they had spent a sum of Rs.10,001/- towards medical expenditure. If the deceased was under the prolonged treatment, the claimants would have spent huge money for his treatment. The medical bills reveal that he had taken treatment only for the eye injury. CT scan was taken to 10 verify the head injury he had sustained, but it shows that there is no serious injury to the head and brain system is normal. Even after the accident, he continued to work as Revenue Inspector of City Municipal Council, Chikkaballapur, however, he took voluntary retirement on 12-07-2010 only few months prior to his retirement and subsequently he died on 07-09-2011. There is no material to show that death occurred due to the injuries he had sustained in the accident.
11. P.W.3 in his evidence admitted that they have not produced any material to show that the deceased had taken treatment from the date of accident till his death. He further stated that his father was not admitted to any hospital for treatment. Hence, it is clear that death is not due to injuries he had sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 17-04-2010. The Tribunal without appreciating all these documents solely on the basis that G.K.Srinivasa Murthy died subsequently after the accident and accordingly awarded the compensation which is contrary to the records available. 11 There is no nexus to the injuries sustained and death of the deceased. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in ILR 1995 KAR 4300 in the case of KANNAMMA v/s DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER; another judgment reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1864 (supra), and another judgment reported in ILR 2002 KAR 660 in the case of BABURAO SATABA MANABUTAKAR DECEASED BY HIS LRs v/s DORESWAMY AND OTHERS held that the legal representatives of the deceased cannot prosecute the claim petition presented by the injured and as such they cannot even recover the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of injuries. Hence, the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 05-03-2012 made in MVC No.6625/2010 passed by the Motor 12 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is set aside. The claim petition filed by the claimants stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*