IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPPEAL NO.205/2016 (MV) C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPPEAL NO.650/2016 (MV) In MFA No.205/2016 BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD HUBLI.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
SIDDALINGASWAMY @ SWAMY S/O. JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT #489/26, I MAIN I CROSS, V.S.GARDEN J.J.R. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026.
(BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3834/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT (SCCH-8), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,03,307/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
In MFA No.650/2016 BETWEEN:
SIDDALINGASWAMY @ SWAMY AGED 34 YEARS S/O JAVARAIAH R/AT NO.489/26, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, V.S. GARDEN J.J.R. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026.
(BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C.
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3834/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT (SCCH-8), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs’ COMING ON FOR ADMISISON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT MFA No.205/2016 is filed by the Corporation and MFA No.650/2016 is filed by the claimant on the ground of quantum. The tribunal by its judgment and award dated 16.09.2015 in MVC No.3834/2014 awarded a sum of Rs.4,03,307/- as compensation to the claimant with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 05.08.2017 at about 3.15 a.m. when he was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-26-F-863 from starting point of the journey, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing registration No.MP-07-HB-
3059. Due to the said impact, he suffered injuries i.e. fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture of shaft humerus right arm.
3. The ground taken by the learned Counsel for the claimant is that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. to assess the loss of earnings during the treatment period and loss of future income and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he requests this Court to allow the appeal filed by the claimant by enhancing the compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the compensation awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period is also on the higher side. Hence, he submits that the claimant is not entitled for any enhanced compensation.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The accident in question is not in dispute.
The appellant/claimant having met with an accident, injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for the same are also not in dispute. Dispute is only with regard to the income. The accident is of the year 2014 and the claimant is a resident of Bengaluru City. It is presumable that he must have earned Rs.6,000/- p.m. In the circumstances, assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. Considering the injuries that the claimant has suffered, the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under various heads, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SA