1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4844 OF 2020 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.541 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A. No.4844/2020
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
B M T C SARIGE, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
& APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
MISS. NISARGA V.,
D/O VIJAYA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O NO.405,
SHILPITHA SPLENDOR ANNEX,
CHINNAPPA LAYOUT,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
& RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR T., ADV.,)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.
13.12.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.3651/2018, ON THE FILE
OF THE IX-ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, AMACT-7,
BENGALURU (SCCH-7), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,89,510/- A/W. FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6 PERCENT P.A., (EXCLUDING ON FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES OF RS.20,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT.
IN M.F.A. No.541/2021
BETWEEN:
MISS. NISARGA V.,
D/O VIJAY KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.405, SHILPITHA,
SPLERNDOR ANNEX, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT,
MAHADEVPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
& APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR T., ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
& RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.,)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.3651/2018 ON THE FILE
OF IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM,
COURT
OF
SMALL
CAUSES,
MEMBER,
MACT-7,
BENGALURU SCCH - 7, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1.
MFA No.4844/2020 is by the BMTC, challenging
the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the BMTC
alone was responsible for the accident and also the
quantum awarded.
2.
MFA No.541/2021 is by the claimant seeking for
enhancement.
3.
As per the evidence of the driver of the BMTC
bus who was examined as RW1, the accident occurred
when the claimant was trying to over take the bus
from the left side of the bus and she lost her balance
and hit the centre door of the bus and as a result, fell
4
down on the road and had suffered injuries. Thus, the
fact that there was an impact between the two
wheeler and the bus, is admitted by the driver of the
BMTC bus himself and thus, it cannot be in dispute
that the accident did occur between the bus and the
two wheeler. Having regard to the evidence of the
driver of the BMTC bus, the argument sought to be
advanced by Sri.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, on
the ground that the accident itself was doubtful,
cannot be accepted.
4.
During the course of cross examination, the
driver of the BMTC bus has also admitted that there
was a bus stop near the point of impact. This indicates
that, in all probability, the bus driver swerved his bus
to the left in order to make an halt at the bus stop and
during this swerving the impact occurred.
5
5.
It is also to be noticed here that the police after
investigation have laid a charge sheet against the
driver of the BMTC bus and these factors, in totality,
indicate that the negligence was entirely on the part of
the BMTC bus. The argument of the learned counsel
for the BMTC that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the rider of the two wheeler ie., the
claimant, cannot therefore be accepted.
6.
The Tribunal has awarded the following sums
after assessing the evidence:
Sl.
No.
Particulars
Amount
in (Rs.)
1.
Pain and sufferings, mental
agony
70,000
2.
Medical expenses
6,30,310
3.
Special diet and conveyance
10,000
4.
Permanent disability
2,59,200
5.
Future medical expenses
20,000
6.
Loss of marriage prospects
1,00,000
Total
10,89,510
7.
It is to be stated here that the claimant, a 19
year old girl studying to be an Architecture sustained
6
a degloving injury to the right upper limb, fracture of
right radial head, right humerus distal end and was
inpatient at Manipal Hospital for 14 days during which
period a wound debridement with an external fixator
was conducted and also excisional debridement was
done apart from skin grafting.
8.
Having regard to the fact that the claimant
suffered a degloving injury to the right upper limb and
also suffered fractures and underwent two surgeries,
the amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
towards pain and suffering is inadequate and in my
view, it would be appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards 'Pain and Suffering'.
9.
The
Tribunal
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.6,30,310/- towards actual medical expenses and
these are based on the bills and therefore, it is
affirmed.
7
10.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards special diet and conveyance. Since, the
claimant was in the hospital for more than 15 days, in
my view, it would be appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards 'Special Diet and Conveyance'.
11.
As far as the permanent disability is concerned,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,200/- by
taking the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month.
The
claimant
is
a
1st
year
student
studying
Architecture and she claimed that she was earning a
sum of Rs.10,000/- as Data Entry Operator while
studying. In my view since the claimant was working
as a Data Entry Operator, her claim that she was
earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month deserves to
be accepted. The assessment of disability of 15% by
the Tribunal and the application of '18' multiplier does
not call for any interference.
8
12.
Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to
a
sum
of Rs.10,000 x 12 x 18 x 15% =
Rs.3,24,000/-.
13.
The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards future medical expenses which is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.