IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM M.F.A. NO.7841 OF 2014 (MV-INJ) C/W M.F.A. NO.3550 OF 2015 (MV-INJ) IN MFA NO.7841/2014 BETWEEN:
KUM. VEENA D/O AMBARISH AGED 21 YEARS R/AT NO.239/234 1ST B MAIN, 4TH CROSS DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD AGARA SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.
AND ALSO R/AT NO.4/1 VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT OLD MADIWALA BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.GAYATHRI E.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER BMTC, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE-27. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7592/2012 ON THE FILE OF 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.3550/2015 BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
KUM. VEENA D/O AMBARISH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/O NO. 239/234, 1ST MAIN 4TH CROSS, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD AGARA, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.
AND ALSO R/AT NO.4/1 VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT OLD MADIWALA, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7592/2012 ON THE FILE OF 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,08,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant and the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short) have preferred these appeals questioning the judgment and award dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.7592/2012. The Corporation has preferred the appeal in MFA No.3550/2015 whereas the claimant has preferred the appeal in MFA No.7841/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts leading to the case are as under:
The claimant filed a petition in MVC No.7592/2012 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 30.07.2012, at about 4.15 p.m., she was returning from College and was proceeding on two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-01/EX-9369 slowly and cautiously by following traffic rules. In view of traffic signal, she had to stop near 29th main road junction. At that time, the offending bus owned by the respondent- Corporation bearing No.KA-57/F-69 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the right foot of the claimant, on account of which, the claimant suffered a crush injury on her right leg. The claimant specifically averred in the claim petition that she is an intelligent student and she had bright prospects. It is also averred in the claim petition that she was assisting her father in fruits and vegetables vending business and she had an independent earning of Rs.8,000/- per month and on account of accidental injuries, she is unable to lead a normal life as she was doing prior to the accident, and hence, she claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. On receipt of notice, the Corporation entered appearance, filed its written statement and stoutly denied the averments made in the petition. The Corporation took a specific contention that it is the claimant who was solely responsible for the accident. It was specifically averred in the petition that the accident occurred on account of the negligence by the claimant herself. A specific averment was also made in the petition on the quantum of compensation sought by the claimant. On these set of grounds, the Corporation sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. The Tribunal, based on rival contentions, formulated the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner prove that the injuries caused in the accident arising out of the use of the vehicle BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-69 occurred on 30.07.2012 at about 04.15 p.m.?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
The claimant, in support of her case, got examined herself as PW.1 and examined another witness as PW.2 and relied on the documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P19. The respondent did not lead any evidence in the matter.
5. The Tribunal, having examined the oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to determine the compensation. The Tribunal, in the absence of documentary evidence indicating that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month, notionally took the income of the claimant at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Having regard to the gravity of injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 20% to the whole body. Having taken the income at Rs.30,000/- per annum and 20% disability to the whole body, the Tribunal proceeded to award a sum of Rs.108,000/- towards future loss of income. Since the claimant has suffered a crush injury, the Tribunal proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.10,000/- towards nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,08,000/-.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MFA No.7841/2014 vehemently contended that the Tribunal had erred in restricting the income of the claimant at Rs.30,000/-
per annum. He further contended that the claimant is an intelligent student and had bright prospects. He also contended that the claimant has placed clinching evidence on record to indicate that she was earning an income of Rs.8,000/- per month by assisting her father in vegetable vending business.
7. Having perused the records, we are of the view that except bald averments in the claim petition and self serving testimony of the claimant, no document is placed on record to demonstrate that the claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. In the absence of clinching evidence, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.30,000/- per annum since she is a college student. This reasoning appears to be just and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court. We have examined the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads. It appears to be fair, just and proper, hence does not warrant any interference. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the claimant is devoid of merit and there is no scope for enhancement in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No.7841/2014 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement is dismissed.
8. Having examined the material on record, we have come to the conclusion that the compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is based on the evidence available on record. In that view of the matter, the appeal in MFA No.3550/2015 filed by the Corporation seeking reduction in the compensation determined by the Tribunal also deserves to be dismissed.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had erred in awarding interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded. This submission has to be accepted. The compensation determined by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.3,08,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No.3550/2015 filed by the Corporation is partly allowed and the compensation determined by the Tribunal shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
10. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal in MFA No.7841/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed and the appeal in MFA No.3550/2015 filed by the Corporation is partly allowed.
The amount deposited by the Corporation in MFA No.3550/2015 stands remitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.