IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 6160 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN VIJITH S/O ELDOSE M.K AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O ALANDUR VILLAGE NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577118 AND WORKING AS ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR KIRAN CONSTRUCTIONS MYSURU.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.M.Y. SREENIVASAN - ADVOCATE) AND 1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP MYSURU-570002.
2. MANJUNATH PRASAD .R S/O RAMASWAMY MAJOR, R/AT NO.173/1 DEVAIAHNA HUNDI, 2ND STAGE SRIRAMPURAM MYSURU-570011.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1134, DEVARU MANSION AMBEDKAR ROAD CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSURU-570004.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGARAJ – ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.02.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.03.2018 PASED IN MVC NO. 664/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned counsel for respondent no.1 – KSRTC and perused the records.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the same is heard for final disposal.
3. The injured-claimant has preferred this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment dated 26.03.2018 in MVC No.664/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The factual matrix is that on 3.4.2014 at about 1.45 p.m. in front of Anjaneya Temple near Exhibition on B.N. Road, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysuru, when the appellant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-09-EV-2568 which was ridden by his friend Chandan carefully by observing traffic rules, at that time the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No.KA09-F-5096 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motor cycle, as a result of which the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to K.R. Hospital Mysuru and provided treatment as an in-patient and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Prior to the accident, the appellant was hale and healthy and was working as an Engineer and Construction Supervisor and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But in view of the accidental injuries, he is now not in a position to work and thereby has suffered physically, mentally and financially. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. After service of notice, the first respondent – KSRTC appeared and filed objection contending that the petition was not maintainable either in law or on facts. It had further denied the age, occupation, income and amount spent by the injured towards medical expenses. It was their further contention that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligence of the KSRTC bus by its driver but due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle itself. However, Respondent No.2 owner of the motor cycle remained absent and was placed exparte. Whereas Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company appeared before the tribunal and filed their written statement and contested the claim petition stating that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver and it was the responsibility of the KSRTC to pay compensation and there was no liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
6. The tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending KSRTC bus and consequently awarded total compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads:
7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of the accident, the appellant had suffered comminuted fracture of right radius and fracture of both bones of the right leg and suffered severe pain due to the injuries apart from spending huge money. Hence, he contends that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a very meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘Injury, pain and suffering’. Hence, on the said head the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
Further, the learned counsel contends that though the appellant was hospitalized and was an in-patient in hospital for several days and also took treatment as an outpatient as well. Though compensation towards ‘Loss of income during laid-up period’ has been awarded by the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘Food, diet, attendant, and nourishment expenses’. Hence, the learned counsel contends that enhanced compensation may be awarded under the above heads appropriately.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On careful evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the injured claimant had sustained comminuted fracture of right radius and fracture of both bones of the right leg. As a result, he would have suffered acute pain and suffering apart from incurring huge money. Hence, I find that Rs.25,000/- awarded towards ‘Injury, pain and suffering’ is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, compensation towards ‘Injury, pain and suffering’ is enhanced by another sum of Rs.35,000/-. Hence, the compensation towards ‘Injury, paid and suffering’ would come to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Further, as contended by the learned counsel, I find that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘Food, diet, attendant and nourishment expenses’. Hence, I hereby award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. Thus, in all, the claimant / appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- as against Rs.5,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.50,000/-.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.664/2014, the compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.5,30,000/- to Rs.5,80,000/-. The enhanced compensation would come to Rs.50,000/-. The first respondent - KSRTC shall deposit the enhanced compensation including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7% before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE KS