Karnataka High Court
C Kumaraswamy vs Reliance General Insu. Co Ltd on 13 October, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.No.1433/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
C KUMARASWAMY
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
KSRTC CONDUCTOR
DADGE NO.895
HUVINAHADAGALI DEPO
R/O VIJAPURA
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSU. CO. LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MAGANUR BASAPPA BLDG.,
B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501
2. G.R. RAGHU
S/O G.N. RAMAKRISHNA
MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.AP-02-V-4759
R/O BALAJI NILAYA
1ST CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR
TUMKUR-572101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1];
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.08.2015)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-5,
CHITRADURGA AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.230/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, chitradurga ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that this appellant was working as a Conductor in a KSRTC bus and the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who has parked the same on the left side of the road in the national highway where there was no provision to park the vehicle and the same has not been considered by the Tribunal while 3 considering the matter and fastened the apportionment of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% in respect of KSRTC bus and the driver of the lorry has not been examined and the driver of the KSRTC bus also not examined and inspite of it the Tribunal has committing an error in taking the contributory negligence on both the sides.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that first of all the KSRTC has not been made as party to the case and apart from that width of the road is 30 feet and there was a place to move the KSRTC bus instead of that the bus came and hit the lorry which was parked hence, the Tribunal has rightly discussed the same in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant also would submit that the compensation awarded is very meager as he has suffered 10 injuries and he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days hence, it requires interference of this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit with regard to the quantum is concerned, the 4 Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience and no compensation could be granted in a case of continuation of job of the injured on the ground of disability and though the compensation given on little lesser side on the other heads but Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards discomfort, inconvenience includes the same.
7. Having heard the arguments of the respective learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus deducting the amount of compensation of 50%?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?
(iii) What order? Point No.1:
8. It is not in dispute that the lorry was parked on the left side of the road in a highway and no provision was made to park the vehicle in the national highway. When such being the 5 case, the Tribunal ought not to have comes to the conclusion that there was a negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and apart from that driver of the lorry has not been examined and also the driver of the KSRTC bus and the claimant is also the Conductor in the said KSRTC bus and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the Conductor does not arise even assuming that the driver of the KSRTC bus has committed the negligence in driving the vehicle. When such being the case, when the spot mahazar clearly discloses that the lorry was parked on the left side of the road and apart from that charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the lorry and the same has not been questioned. When such being the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the contributory negligence also on both the sides. Hence, point No.1 is answered as affirmative.
Point No.2
9. The contention of the counsel appearing for the claimant that the compensation awarded is very meager. Taken note of the nature of the injuries and he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days and also suffered fracture and the doctor has 6 assessed the disability of 40% to the particular limb and 13% to the whole body. Admittedly he continued the job and the Government order is placed before the Court to show that he has assigned other work hence, there is no loss of future income. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience due to disability and the same ought to have been towards the amenities. Having taken note of the injuries, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the same is unaltered. Towards traveling expenses, conveyance, attendants charges, diet, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- which requires interference since he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days and on other heads, just and reasonable compensation is awarded and hence, additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded thus, point No.2 is answered accordingly.
Point No.3:
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
7
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 07.01.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.230/2012 is modified setting aside the 50% of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,55,000/- along with additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith, if any.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN