- 1 -
MFA No. 102540 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102540 OF
2016 C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102541 OF
2016 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.102540/2016
BETWEEN:
1.
LATHA
W/O NINGANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,
R/O: KIRIGERI VILLAGE IN
HIREKERUR TALUK AND
HAVERI DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
NORTH WEST DIVISION,
GOKUL ROAD HOSUR,
HUBBALLI REPTD BY ITS
DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC RANEBENNUR DEPOT,
- 2 -
MFA No. 102540 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016
RANEBENNOUR,
DISTRICT: HAVERI
(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE
KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA 17/F-1030)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.679/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.102541/2016
BETWEEN
DEEPA
W/O VEERANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,
R/O: KIRIGERI VILLAGE IN
HIREKERUR TALUK AND
HAVERI DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
NORTH WEST DIVISION,
GOKUL ROAD HOSUR,
HUBBALLI REPTD BY ITS
DEPOT MANAGER, NWKRTC
RANEBENNUR DEPOT, RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI,
(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE
KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA 17/F-1030)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
MFA No. 102540 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.680/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3.
These two appeals are filed by the claimants
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC
Nos.679/2013 and 680/2013.
4.
Factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal is that on 01.07.2012 when the
claimants were proceeding in vehicle bearing No.KA-17/A-
490 from Tumminakatti village towards Harihar, at that
time a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-17/F-1030 came in a
- 4 -
rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle in
which the claimants were proceeding. As a result, both of
the claimants have sustained injuries and fracture of fibula
and displaced fracture of patella and they took treatment
as inpatients and have suffered permanent disability and
hence laid a claim before the Tribunal.
5.
The Tribunal after considering both the oral and
documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation
of Rs.98,900/- in MVC No.679/2013 and Rs.96,500/- in
MVC No.680/2013 with interest at 7% p.a. Hence, present
two
appeals
are
filed
by
the
claimants
seeking
enhancement of compensation.
6.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
would vehemently contend that in MVC No.679/2013 the
claimant had sustained undisplaced fracture of upper 1/3rd
fibula and the same is certified as grievous and he was in
patient for 11 days. He further submits that the claimant
in MVC No.680/2013 had sustained undisplaced fracture of
- 5 -
patella bone and the Tribunal committed an error in
assessing the disability at 5% in both the cases and
compensation awarded on all the heads is very meager
and failed to take note of th disability assessed by the
doctor, who has been examined as PW.3 and hence, it
requires interference.
7.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-KSRTC contends that the doctor who is
examined is a known doctor who assessed the disability on
higher side and the Tribunal has taken note of evidence
which he has exaggerated and assessed the disability.
Hence, the assessed disability and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
8.
Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the
following points would arise for consideration:
i.
Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in
not
awarding
just
and
reasonable
- 6 -
compensation in MVC Nos.679/2013 and
680/2013?
ii.
What order?
9.
Regarding Point No.1: The Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head pain and
suffering in each of the claim petitions. The injured in MVC
No.679/2013 was inpatient for a period of 11 days and
claimant in MVC No.680/2013 was inpatient for a period of
13 days and having taken note of the undisplaced fracture
of patella and fibula, it is appropriate to enhance the same
to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- in both the cases.
10. The Tribunal considered the medical expenses
based on the bills which have been produced by the
claimants and hence the compensation of Rs.10,700/-
awarded in MVC No.679/2013 and Rs.8,300/- awarded in
MVC No.680/2013 does not require any interference and
the same is based on documentary evidence. On the head
food and nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded only
- 7 -
Rs.2,000/- though the claimants were inpatient for a
period of 11 and 13 days. Hence, it is appropriate to
enhance the same to Rs.10,000/- in both the cases.
11. While considering loss of income, the Tribunal
has taken monthly income of the claimants at Rs.4,000/-
and the accident is of the year 2012. Hence, the notional
income would be Rs.6,500/-. Having taken note of the
fractures sustained by the claimants, it requires three
months for uniting of fracture and for rest. Hence, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.19,500/- each on the head
loss of income in both the cases.
12. Insofar as compensation awarded towards loss
of income on account of permanent disability is concerned,
in MVC No.679/2