IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.89/2019 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTINAGAR K H ROAD BANGALORE-560027 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI GABARI PRASAD S/O MAHANGU PRAJAPATI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT #15, NEW BINNY LAYOUT NEAR RAILWAY CROSS BINNYPET BANGALORE-560023 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI K T GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6641/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, SCCH-19, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,01,750/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 24.09.2018 passed in MVC No.6641/2017 by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge & XXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.1,01,750/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation came to be granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award corporation has preferred this appeal.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The details of the accident are on 19.10.2017 at about 9.40 a.m. when the petitioner along with his brother and other two people boarded the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/FA-841 from Kundalahalli towards Majestic at about 10.10 a.m. when the bus reached Airport road, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake because of which the petitioner who was inside the bus sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Srinivasa Hospital for first aid and then to Vydehi Hospital and spent Rs.2,50,000/- for medical treatment and so on and so forth and claimed compensation. The matter was contested by BMTC.
4. Learned Member was accommodated with oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence Exhibits P-1 to P-12 on behalf of the petitioner and oral evidence of RW-1 and documentary evidence Exhibits R-1 to R-3 on behalf of respondent. Learned Member came to a conclusion to grant compensation as under:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
during laid up period 5. Towards loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rounded off Rs.1,01,747/-
Rs.1,01,750/-
5. Learned counsel for appellant Sri D Vijay Kumar, would submit that the claim made by the petitioner before the Tribunal is not a natural one and is against the probabilities. It is stated that the petitioner is the only person who has claimed compensation and others have not done so. By which the fact of non-sustaining of injury by the petitioner is established. Learned counsel would further submit the petitioner claims injury to stomach. It cannot be believed for a while as when the petitioner claims to be traveling in a bus which applies sudden brake and part if any to sustain injury either would be head or the nose or mouth. Injury said to have been sustained by the petitioner is: Abrasion over the left upper abdomen.
6. Learned counsel for the corporation would submit that the corporation has taken up the defence as to non-travelling of the petitioner in the offending vehicle and that there was no accident. Incidentally on perusal of the Judgment and paragraphs relied upon by the learned counsel there is no such mention to presume the pleading more particularly the driver in his evidence has unequivocally admitted that criminal case is not challenged and they have not challenged the charge sheet filed by the police. It is necessary to place on record that while taking defence and submitting regarding pleading taken before the court it is necessary that appellant or the claimant are supposed to submit on the facts.
7. In the light of the fact that a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.148/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. If there was a false claim according to the corporation it could have agitated through a proper forum and having not chosen to do so and agitating before the appellate court for the first time only amounts to objections for the sake of objections without there being any substance.
8. I find that the contentions of the appellant are not proper or reasonable. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. Interest at the rate of 9% p.a. granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and 6% p.a. appears to be just and proper.
Appeal is partly allowed. Interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is reduced to 6% p.a. To that extent Judgment and award dated 24.09.2018 passed in MVC No.6641/2017 by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge & XXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru is modified.
Amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
SBN Sd/- JUDGE