IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.406/2017(MV) C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6885/2019 (MV) M.F.A. No.406/2017 BETWEEN:
INTERNAL INSURANCE, K.S.R.T.C., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001 NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND 1. SRI P. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O P. PALANISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SINCE THE RESPODNENT NO.1 MENTALLY NOT STABLE HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, HIS WIFE P. VIDYA AGED ABUT 37 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. SAVVE MALA VILLAGE, H.D. KOTE POST & TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114 2. B.S. RAJA, S/O. SUBBANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O BEERVALU VILLAGE, SARGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. GEORGE LAZARUS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1003/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,45,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A. No.6885/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI P. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O P. PALANISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SINCE THE APPELLANT NO.1 IS MENTALLY NOT STABLE HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, HIS WIFE P. VIDYA AGED ABUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. SAVVE MALA VILLAGE, H.D. KOTE POST & TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI R. GEORGE LAZARUS, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRIB.S. RAJA, S/O. SUBBANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O BEERVALU VILLAGE, SARGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114 2. INTERNAL INSURANCE, KSRTC, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001 NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1003/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, AS PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These are two appeals directed against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2016 passed in MVC No. l003/2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, came to be allowed in part and a compensation of Rs.15,45,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum came to be awarded and by fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant the Tribunal held that claimant is entitled to Rs.13,90,590/- together with interest.
2. Insofar as MFA No.406/2017 is concerned, it is preferred by Internal Insurance, KSRTC seeking for cancellation of the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Insofar as MFA No.6885/2019 is concerned, claimant has preferred it seeking enhancement of the compensation.
3. The incident leading to initiating the proceedings before the Tribunal is that on 17.03.2013 at about 1.45 near Kolagala Gate, Mysuru, Manandavadi Road, H.D. Kote Taluk, the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-45/E-2492 towards Sathyamangalam, Tamil Nadu State, at that time the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-09/F-4233 came in a high speed with rash and negligent and dashed to the claimant, due to which he fell down, sustained serious injuries including head injury. He was shifted to H.D. Kote Hospital by the Conductor of the alleged bus and after taking first aid as per the advice he was again shifted to BGS Apollo Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment, wherein he underwent operation Duroplasty and took treatment as inpatient from 17.03.2013 to 24.04.2013. His upper lips are totally paralyzed, his brain is not functioning properly and he requires attendant through out his life. For the treatment he spent an amount of Rs.5,89,772/- towards medical expenses. He was earning Rs.40,000/- per month by way of agriculture.
4. The learned Member of the Tribunal considered the aspects of negligence, accident, injuries and disability and granted compensation of Rs.15,45,100/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and deducted 10% towards contributory negligence. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:
1 Towards Medical expenses and nourishment 2 Towards loss of income during laid up period and rest 3 Towards injury and pain and sufferings 4 Towards loss of future income 5 Towards loss of amenities of life 6 Towards future medical expenses Rs.6,00,000-00 Rs.65,100-00 Rs.20,000-00 Rs.8,10,000-00 Rs.25,000-00 Rs.25,000-00 Total Rs.15,45,100-00 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation in MFA No.406/2017 in MFA No.406/2017 Sri F.S. Dabali would submit that the claimant has authored the accident as he contributed negligence. If had he exercised a minimum care the entire accident could have been avoided. The learned counsel drew my attention to the Sketch of the Spot of the accident and submitted about the facts with regard to the rash and negligence of the claimant that led for accident.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant in MFA No.6885/2019 Sri R. George Lazarus would submit that claimant was riding the motorcycle with care and caution and the bus driver abruptly turned of the vehicle that caused the accident. He would further submit that the driver of the bus should have realized the light vehicle was on the other side. He also submits that the Tribunal has unreasonably taxed claimant with contributory negligence at 10%, thereby deprived of his legal and legitimate compensation. He further submits that even the monthly income is considered at unreasonably low as the claimant was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and now he is handicap because of the accident.
7. The Tribunal has considered the medical expenses at Rs.6,00,000/-, the loss of income during laid up period at Rs.65,100/-, towards pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/-, loss of future income Rs.8,10,000/-, loss of amenities at Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses at Rs.25,000/-.
8. Insofar as loss of future income is concerned, the monthly income of the claimant is treated at Rs.9,000/- and the disability at 50%. Thus an amount of Rs.54,000/- is considered as annual loss. Thus, the compensation of Rs.15,45,100/- with 9% interest is as per the break up stated above.
9. I have perused Para No.11 of the judgment, wherein the mode of the accident is described with reference to the negligence of the Driver of KSRTC Bus and also that of the claimant. However, negligence of the driver is considered at 90% and that of the claimant at 10%. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that there was no negligence on his part.
10. Insofar as negligence is concerned, it is a breach of legal duty to take care of oneself and others as well. It is a state of indifference and don’t care attitude. Keeping the said fact in mind I find the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal are proper.
11. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, they have been properly considered. Neither the driver can seek for absolving negligence of 90% nor claimant for 10%. In the overall circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.15,45,100/- awarded together with interest at 9% peer annum from the date of petition till realization is just and fair. There is no necessity to interfere with the reasons and findings of the Tribunal.
12. Both the appeals fail and accordingly they are rejected.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*