IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.3271 OF 2018 (MV - I) C/W M.F.A.NO.9368 OF 2017 IN M.F.A.NO.3271/2018 BETWEEN:
SIDDU @ SIDDARAJU @ SIDDAPPA, S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AN AGRICULTURIST, R/AT UBBANAHALLI, BALEKOPPA POST, KUMSI HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
(BY SRI.M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. PUTTARAJU, S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DRIVER OF K.S.R.T.C, ATTACHED TO MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.TC. BENGALURU, …APPELLANT MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA – 576 201.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. BENGALURU, (K.H.ROAD), MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA – 571 401.
3. G.GANESHA, S/O GADIGEPPA, AGE IN MAJOR, R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE, BALEKOPPA HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1198/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT, VI SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.9368/2017 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. BENGALURU, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA – 571 401. (OWNER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA-11-F-0284) NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. SIDDU @ SIDDARAJU @ SIDDAPPA, S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/AT UBBANAHALLI, BALEKOPPA POST, KUMSI HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SRI.M.PUTTARAJU, S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, (KSRTC DRIVER BADGE NO.3520, BUS NO.KA-11-F-0284) MANDYA DEPOT, MANDYA.
3. SRI.G.GANESH, S/O SRI. GADIGEPPA, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE, BALEKOPPA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK.
…APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH;
R3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1198/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT-6, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,67,900/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT MFA No.3271/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and award in MVC No.1198/2014 is filed by the appellant-claimant against the impugned judgment and award whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,900/- with interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.3,52,900/- from the date of petition till realization.
2. MFA No.9368/2017 has been filed by the KSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. In so far as MFA No.9368/2017 filed by the appellant-KSRTC is concerned, the main ground on which the appellant-claimant-KSRTC has preferred this appeal is that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side since the appellant-claimant was guilty of contributory negligence and consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced in accordance with the contributory negligence. In this context, it is relevant to state that this Court in MFA No.9367/2018 has already come to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence and the said finding was attained finality in MFA No.9367/2018. Accordingly, this contention urged on behalf of the KSRTC is liable to be rejected.
5. In so far as MFA No.3271/2018 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.7,500/-p.m. instead of Rs.8,500/- p.m. as stipulated in the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is also contended that proportionately the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhancement in the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period’. It is further contended that having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is highly inadequate and meager and the same requires enhancement by this Court.
6. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal committed error in not awarding any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’, particularly the material on record discloses that the appellant-claimant has sustained two fractures apart from the several other injuries sustained in the accident.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in MFA No.3217/2018 would support the impugned judgment and award.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.7,500/- p.m. instead of RS.8,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. The Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the permanent disability to the entire body is to the extent of 18%. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.3,12,120/- under the head ‘loss of future income’ as here under:
8500x12x18/100 = Rs.3,12,120/-
The Tribunal having awarded a sum of RS.2,75,400/-, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.36,720/- (Rs.3,12,120.00 - 2,75,400.00) towards ‘loss of future income’.
10. Consequent upon coming to the conclusion that the notional income is to be taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m., the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up/treatment period’.
11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ which was not awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant- claimant would also entitled to additional sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’.
12. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.79,720/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization as hereunder:
13. The amount in deposit in MFA No.9368/2017 is hereby directed to transmit to the Tribunal for making the payment.
14. In MFA No. 9368/2017 as stated above, the contention of the appellant-KSRTC that the appellant- claimant was guilty of contributory negligence is hereby rejected. However, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant-KSRTC in MFA No.9368/2017 is correct in submitting that the Tribunal committed error in awarding interest at 8% p.a. instead of 6%p.a. Accordingly, MFA No.9368/2017 is also hereby partly allowed reducing the interest from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and A.M.A.C.T.VI, Shivamogga in MVC No.1198/2014 is hereby set aside.
(ii)MFA No.3271/2018 is partly allowed awarding additional compensation in a sum of Rs.79,720/- in favour of the appellant- claimant together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iii)MFA No.9368/2017 is also partly allowed reducing the interest on compensation awarded from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a.
(iv)It is also clarified that the enhanced compensation awarded in MFA No.3271/2018 shall not carry interest for the period of 198 days which has been condoned by this Court as stated above.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD