Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.
Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. – Appellant
Versus
Manjamma H N – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4853 of 2020 (MV-I)
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Sukanya H.D., Advocate, S. Rajashekar, Advocate
The main legal point established is the assessment of permanent disability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claim - Sec. 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 - The court discussed the occurrence of the road traffic accident, the liability of the respondents to pay compensation, and the assessment of permanent disability by the doctor. The key legal provisions discussed include the assessment of disability and the quantum of compensation awarded.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident involving a KSRTC Bus. The Tribunal partially allowed the claim, holding the respondent liable to pay compensation. KSRTC appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's appeal was not maintainable as they were not a party before the Tribunal. The court also upheld the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability and quantum of compensation, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the respondents to pay compensation, the assessment of permanent disability, and the maintainability of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's appeal was not maintainable and upheld the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability and quantum of compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by appellant/KSRTC is dismissed as devoid of merit. The statutory amount in deposit by the appellant - KSRTC in the Registry be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal without delay.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The present appellant - K.S.R.T.C. has challenged the impugned judgment and award dtd. 13/1/2020, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Holenarasipura, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity), which was instituted by the present respondent No.1, who, as a claimant had instituted a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 with interest at Rs.18.00% per annum, for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by her in a road traffic accident said to have occurred on the date 27/1/2015.
2. The summary of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that, on the date 27/1/2015, at about 5:00 p.m., when the claimant along with her family members was travelling in a Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/MT-8960 near the Cross of NH-234 on Charmadi Ghat, Tharuve village, a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-2848, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant's Car, due to which road traffic accident, the claimant sustained simple as well grievous injuries on her body. She was shifted to the Government Hospital at Mudigere and then to Mangala Hospital, Hassan.
The claimant has stated that she took treatment as an in-patient for one week in the Hospital and spent a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 towards the medical expenses. She also stated that, after the accident, she is unable to work as usual. She further stated that even at the time of giving her evidence, she was taking treatment as an outpatient. Stating that at the time of accident, by working as an Advocate, she was earning a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 per month, however, due to the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident, she is unable to do any work as she was doing prior to the accident, has claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 from the respondents before the Tribunal, arraigning them as the driver/conductor and owner-cum-insurer of the alleged offending Bus.
3. After the service of summons, it was only respondent No.2 therein who appeared and filed its written statement, wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition. It denied the manner of occurrence of the accident and also the alleged disability of the claimant including her alleged income. The respondents No.1 and 3 before the Tribunal remained absent, as such they were placed ex-parte.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined one Dr. Jagadish as PW-2 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-18 and Exs.C-1 and C-2. However, on behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked.
5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence led by both side, the Tribunal, by its impugned judgment dtd. 13/1/2020, allowed the claim petition in part, holding the respondent No.2 before it (who is not a party here), liable to pay the compensation to the claimant of a sum of Rs.2, 21, 400.00 together with interest thereupon at the rate of Rs.6.00% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, under the following heads with the sum shown against them:
Challenging the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant - KSRTC has preferred this appeal.
6. The respondent No.1 herein (claimant) is represented by her learned counsel. The respondent No.2 herein who was the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal is said to be the driver-cum-conductor of the alleged offending KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-19/F2848, for whom the notice is held sufficient vide order dtd. 22/6/2022.
7. Records are called for from the Tribunal and the same are placed before the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - KSRTC and learned counsel for the respondent No.1(claimant) are physically appearing before the Court.
9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court incl
