IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.3269/2015 [MV] C/W M.F.A.No.1806/2015 [MV] M.F.A.No.3269/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI P RAVEENDRA @ PATRI RAVEENDRA S/O NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.317, 2ND BLOCK RADIENT, ENCLAVE SANCITY ROAD KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU-560 060.
(BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.
2. M/S. THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KSCMF BUILDING ...APPELLANT NO.8, 3RD FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
3. DR. SURYA PRASAD M.
S/O ASWATH NARAYANA SHASTRY S.N. MAJOR, R/AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS OPP. SRINIVASA MANDIRAM BALEPETE BENGALURU-560 053.
(BY SRI.F S DABALI, ADV. FOR R1 SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2 R3-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:04/07/2016) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3712/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A.No.1806/2015 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. (BY SRI.F S DABALI, ADV.) ...APPELLANT AND:
1. SRI P RAVEENDRA @ PATRI RAVEENDRA S/O NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.317, 2ND BLOCK RADIENT, ENCLAVE SANCITY ROAD KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU-560 060.
2. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INS.CO.LTD., KSCMF BUILDING NO.8, 3RD FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
3. DR. SURYA PRASAD M.
S/O ASWATH NARAYANA SHASTRY S.N. AGE-MAJOR NO.8, 2ND CROSS OPP. SRINIVASA MANDIRAM BALEPETE BENGALURU-560 053.
(BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K., ADV. FOR R1 SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2 R3-SERVED UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3712/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,80,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE M.F.A.s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Both the appellant/claimant and respondent – Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the KSRTC’) are in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.01.2015 passed in MVC No.3712/2013 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 22.06.2013 when the claimant was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-U- 6830 on Bangalore-Mysore Road, Kengeri, a K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-10-F-198 came in very high speed rash, negligent manner and dashed to the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MK-2443 from behind due to that the impact the car toppled on the right median and ran into the claimants vehicle as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Claimant was aged 49 years and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, working as a Senior Manager in M/s. Pursuit Technologies.
3. On issuance of summons, the 1st respondent – Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed their written statement denying the entire petition averment. Respondent No.2 – Insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. However, admitted issuance of policy. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2., Medical Record Incharge of Shreya Hospital as PW.3 apart from marking the documents Exs.P1 to P7. Respondent No.2 got examined its Assistant Manager as RW.1. Respondent No.3 got examined himself as RW.2 and respondent No.1 got examined its bus driver as RW.3. Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on behalf of respondents. The Tribunal based on the material placed on record awarded total compensation of Rs.4,80,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, on the following heads:-
a. pain and suffering 60,000/-
b. Loss of amenities and happiness 30,000/-
c. Medical and incidental charges 30,000/-
d. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 50,000/-
e. Loss of future earnings due to disability 2,80,800/-
f. Future medical expenses 30,000/-
Total Rs.4,80,800/-
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is in appeal in MFA No.3269/2015, whereas the respondent – KSRTC is in appeal aggrieved by exorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent / KSRTC as well the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the entire material on record.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of the material placed on record including the lower court records, the only point which falls for consideration is as to “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant or just compensation ?” Answer to the said point would be that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference for the following reasons:
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, the claimant had produced Ex.P13 the leave certificate along with salary certificate which indicates that the claimant was receiving a salary of Rs.31,500/- per month working as Senior Manager at M/s. Pursuit Technologies. Without there being any reason the Tribunal rejected Ex.P.13 and assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month, which needs to be revised. Further the learned counsel for the claimant states that PW.2 – the Doctor in his evidence states that the claimant suffers from disability of 46.32 % to both right lower limb and pelvic girdle and 23 % whole body disability. The Tribunal without there being any reason assessed the whole body disability at 18% which is perverse and erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have taken 23% whole body disability as stated by PW.2 – the Doctor. Further the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded on the head future medical expenses is on the lower side lo oking to the injuries suffered by the claimant, therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the head future medical expenses.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent – KSRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and needs to be reduced. He further submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is on the higher side and he submits that in the absence of proving Ex.P.13 the salary certificate, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month. Further learned counsel submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal without properly appreciating the Doctor’s evidence and the medical records assessed the disability at 18% is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal awarded higher compensation on the head pain and suffering. The claimant was inpatient for only five days and as such he prays for reducing the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering.
The occurrence of the accident on 22.06.2013 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant involving Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-U-6830, KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-10-F-198 and the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MK-2443 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant states that he was working as Senior Manager in M/s. Pursuit Technologies and was drawing salary of Rs.31,500/- per month as per Ex.P.13 the leave certificate and salary certificate, issued by the Director of M/s. Pursuit Technology. The claimant has not examined any person from his employer i.e., Pursuit Technologies to establish his salary certificate and leave certificate. Ex.P.13 is not proved in accordance with law. As Ex.P-13 was not proved in accordance with law, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is in accordance with law and needs no interference. Claimant sustained injury of swelling over upper 1/3rd of right thigh, fracture of shaft of right femer, left inferior and superior pubic rami fracture of right hip bone, laceration over right elbow. PW.2 – the Doctor is examined. In his evidence he states that the claimant suffers from 46.32 % disability of right lower limb, pelvic girdal and 23% whole body disability. The Tribunal looking to the nature of injury, evidence of Doctor and treatment taken as inpatient has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 18% which needs no interference. The claimant states that he needs to undergo two more operations as deposed by PW.2 – the Doctor. As such he submits that the future medical expenses awarded at Rs.30,000/- is on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2013. The claimant has not made available any records to establish that she has spent any amount on surgery, subsequently. Even though the Doctor has stated that the claimant needs future treatment, the claimant has failed to place on record any material to indicate that she had taken future treatment from 2013 till this day. In the absence of any material for having taken treatment, subsequently, awarding of Rs.30,000/- on the head Medical and incidental charges is just and proper, which needs no interference. As the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, I am of the view, that both the appeals are merit less and are liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit in MFA No.1806/2015 be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms