—4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11 H QAY OF AUGUST 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR1 JUSTICE V.G.SABHAHTT AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR M.F.A. No.5851/2007 c/w M.F.A. Crob.104/2008 Betweeii: M.F.A. No.5851/2007 The General Manager North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation H.O. Hubli. represented by the Chief Law Officer K.S.R.T.C. Central Offices K.H.Road Shanthinagar Bangalore-560 027. ... Appellant (By Sri.F.S.Dabali, Adv.) And: Sri.Chandrahas Naravan Palankar Aged about 46 cars Gold Smith, R/o.Ankola Ankola Taluk. U. K. District. ... Respondent (By Sr.R.H.Angadi. Adv.) This MFA filed u/s 173(1) of the Nl.’. Act against the judgment and award dated 1•2-2007 passed in MVC No.101/2001 on the file of the Member, Additional M 4 cr. Sirsi, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,O6.000/ L S with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. M.F.A. Crob. 104/2008 Between: Sri.Chandrahas Narayan Palankar Aged about 46 years Gold Smith. R/o.Ankola Ankola Taluk, U.lCDistrict. (By Sr.R.H.Angadi, Adv.) And: The General Manager North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation H.O. Hubli, represented by the Chief Law Officer K.S.R.T.C. Central Offices K.H.Road Shanthinagar Bangalore-5S0 027. (By Sri.F.S.Dabali, Adv.) spoiiclent CROS_oaJec’roQ. * pellant -? This MPA Cr01). is filed tinder Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company/appellant. further modify and enhance the compensation front Rs.5,06.000/ -. to Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded b’ the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Sirsi in M.V.C.No.lOl/2001 dated 1-2-2007, with cost and interest. * C cLa.,.JDS% -i 141 bjb ff,,vLJ’€ fhJ 3 These MFA and MFA Crob. having been heard and reserved and coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day. B.MANOKAR, J.. pronounced the following: JUDGMENT The North West Kaznataka Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award datcd 1-2-2007 macic in MVC No.101/2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) Sirsi, filed this appeal. 2. The respondent/claimant filed M.F.A. Crob. 104/2008 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: On 16-12-2000. the claimant along with a pillion rider Vishwanath Ananth Rhat was travelling in his motor bike bearing Registration KA-30/J-3 136 in Bandal (that on Sirsi—Ktirnta Road. While proceeding towards Ankola it about 6.45 p.m.. a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-423 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of 4 the churnat it dia to tin I ash .ind nn’iwent di kin of the driver of the bus. I )tir In ti’’’ iii.P.u I. the ci 1 tirnaiit ;ind the pillion nder fchi don ciflCi stistaiiied &nei’us injuries. Tin c liiinant nas shifted tn we Sit si liospit;tl. tllereLthel lie ‘ :i shifted to ti: I !.spial at I Itilili fyi further treatment. The claimant had sustained grievous inunes and he was bed ridden in 11w hospital for t) j cia s in various hospitals and spent more than Rs.3.50.000 1 n arcis medical expei K! Iture and Rs. 1 .00.000 Wu arcls t ravelbi I!’ exuendu tin . lie uas a goldsmith by piofession and clue to the accident. he has lost his business afl(l sotic’lit 1(31 c onhlwnsat ion of Rs. 10.00.000 4. The second respondet it i etnalned inireprcsented in spite (If sen ice ill notice. I in first resfN)n(leIil JN’IiI the owner of the alleged ehic le flied ohm etlons and denied the averments made in 11w elzmn petition and i noIrlith : i • H •. • 11,1’ tI1’t•1 • 7 ( n,ctoi ‘‘1 ‘ 1 (I ‘ C Ii I I I ...t Ilti. 1 •i.’ ..t•.fe .: ? ... •‘‘!• :‘ InpeilS it Intl It i *1 •• Hid fl itt! I . Iii’ compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident in question vas clue to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus KA-17/F-423, as a result of which, he sustained injuries? (ii) Whether petitioner entitled to compensation as claimed by him? If not, what is the quantum of compensation he is entitled for and from whom? (iii) What order? 6. Tn order to substantiate his case, the claimant examined himself ais P.W. I and examined the Doctor who has treated him as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.42 1. On the other hand, the first respondent examined the driver of the bus us D.W.1 and got the documents marked as Ex.R 1 and Ex. RI. II The ‘ ia’ni.tnt in his rich’nn rciterzited tlw t iverinents macic in the churn petition and eontciided that ‘hiie he ‘:s rilin” his :ii ii’w bike To.aniq .IIkflli on Sirsi kurnia Road ctIon witn a pillion rider, due to the rash and negligent diii ing of the KSRTt bus in a Chat curve. tlishet1 against his motor hike He’ has sustained grieous injuries and he has taken treatment in various hospitals. Tiit’ FIR. eop,v of the complaint. panchanama. wound certificate’. rharge sheet were produced and marked as Ex.i9 to Kx.P5, hi patient nird. I iospitai card. 1)isajbilii ti’iiifieaie issued 1w (lie L)octc,rs as Ex.P.6 to Ex P 1 ) and other medical bills and X ra s as Ex.P1 3 to bx.P 42 1 . in the (TOSS examination. be deposed thai due to the rash and negligent dnving of the bits the accident has taken place and the Police have rt—eistered a ease against the .Irier of the bus. Thc spell irn lttn€trna leark shnu s that du to the i ,h and neW gel t dinni ‘ o’ the lna the ,jt t’I’it ‘11 Ii’. 1.1*.”!) Pi’1 • I) \ ‘ I),, • ; I ‘ ‘‘‘ CL ‘I ii• : •. (1101 ti he ii gt( I I ‘. 4 (lisabthtv certificate. In his t” iclen’ e he has clt’posecl j’cret’ntige ul clisiult1 1s Ii) di ‘wi ol the bus as C €tnnwd ciS I).W. 1. In his nidenn he has deposed I Intl the wndeni has taken iilzwe due to tin— rash and nn’Ik”’iv nclitm t’f the innti’r bike by the claimant. Flmvne’r. in the cross examination he has stated that no complaint has been lodged against 11w rider of niotor bike reoarding negligence. Further. the Police ha e registered a cast against him. 10. The Tnbunal On the I)clSlS of the oral and documentary e idetiec held that due to rash and neghient driving of the kSRTt 1)115. liii’ arc’iik’iit took plaice. The actionable negligence is on the part of tin clri er of the KSRTC bus. Tltc I’ohcc repot I c lear h discloses that thu ciunc shset has been tiled against time clnet nI the 1)115. e’e t’ ‘Iiii?l Ii. 1.1 iii.,! t. rf 1 iii’’.t I’, ‘ii’i’:’ ! •r 1!.t fl!!; ‘‘‘ 3’’i 1 Icr t ii tI )tj I • Ii ‘. I t ‘‘! •j 14 I •, • :‘ l, l 1 0I into eonsicler€tnop tiu injtirie sufli red In the claimant has assess d t11 cbs tbilit I . rhotwh the rIaIincIflt cl.tmie.I that w €‘s e.1ni!It Ns. 1 5.tflk) to Rs.20.tfl it) p.m. in gi ildsmitl I )j sli ws’c n’ d n’i linent has been produced to prow tha’ aspe( 1. In the absencc of the same. the Tribunal has taken his nionthl income at Rs.5.000 p.m. Takitte into consideration the clisabilit of the claimant at 1 3 and also taking 11110 consideration tilt rILW of the laimmt and appl ing the multiplier ol 14. the inhunal has €narclccl compensation of Rs. 1 .26.000, to arcls future loss of income. Furthet. though the claimant had produced the medical bills for Rs.2.5c100() . ill respect of Ex.E’.2.35 and Ex.P.23ej. the receipts for htavmg purchased the Surgigard steerinpe gages s ab. front one Nnedita lkvieiir I’Ii)clLl( ts. \lL:! 1 k11. •. I llhutiilI lidS heki that then is ii’’ l)rcril ‘tl’i in aim the den 1 nrs incl tlK authot ot the said (IC)’ and its was also not (.1flslI1’ ci Iii Li (II; .eti( ol itic ,.,t;’c • (at mu. t’j’ %d.’i ‘iI•; !‘‘ 1m’’’m : •‘ : l •, .: ‘• ( Ii(j I ‘it ‘ P ) ‘ .‘ )( .) ‘ At and pain ni id sit! fi brings. Rs.4r’J )U() to” airds loss of income durit e tin laid till ( i-is I Rs.IO.000 toncls luss of aiuc’flhllrs. In all. ilic hibunil has aainIed Rs.5.Ot’.Ot)(i it1i u’ interest 12. l3eing aggrieved in the jtith&tnent mid au ard by the Tribunal, the appellant hats jn’efeflTd this appeal tontending thai the compensation arded by the Tribunal is e\c’rbitant. Due .to 11w rash and negligent riding of 11w nhc)fl)r hike iii tn’ (iiii sectiufl. the accident has taken place. There is contrilat tory negligence on the part of the cli h or of the allegc’d In is as as the i uier ot the mote r bike. F ixim’ I lie entire lial,iliiv on the oner ol the vehicle is contrary to law. The claimant is hale and healths and he is running thc ‘tint \1aiithir,iI.*.i .Jeuelarv :1i..p. lie h.is nut sitrlc’red any future loss mcI nmlpeiis 1 )linn dW ainled In the riibial i • ,‘ t s ,e itid , ‘ ch l.r C tim’ uk ii 5cR!Vie. 1•14 I. i • I • ) ( I (7 s” j,ca’ r1 ‘ t ; n• i e iii m i I to mainly contending that disallowing of the two 1)1115 i.e. Ex.P.235 and Ex.P.236 by the Tribunal is contrary to law. On the prescription of the Doctor, he has purchased the Surgigard steeringe gages swab valued at Rs. 1 .06.000/ - from the Nivedita Hygiene Products. Mumbai. Though the claimant claimed medical bills for Rs.3,50,000/-, the Tribunal without any reason disallowed those two medical bills and awarded only Rs.2,5O000/ - towards medical expenses. Further. though the Doctor who has treated him deposed that the disability suffered by the claimant is 40%, the Tribunal has taken only 1 5% which is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: (U Whether the jzickjinc’,zt and award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal is sustainable in knu: (iii U’hc ti. r ti .‘n: t ‘,inlcvI mr lhc c’nhunec d cumic nsutic)tl? 1 a. The records clearI disc iosc that tlic c laimant sustained inluries in thc in )tor . hide accident that took plac’c on 1 6 1 2 2000. lnitial1 . the claimant WEtS shifted to the hospital at Sirsi and thereaftei he was shifted to hospital at I lubli for lx tter treatmc at. and thereaftet he was shifted to th. hospital at Mangalore for the furthet treatment. He c laiins that he has spent more than Rs.%3.aO.000 I to ards medical expenditure and Rs. 1.00.000/ towards traelling allow anc e He has contended that lie was runniiw Guru Manthravala a Jewellery shop and doing goldsmith business and also doing cloth a ndinu business earnin° Rs. I a,000, to Rs.20.000 r n1 l)ue to tin i t.h tad ncglvc ‘n dr’ing of the bus. the accident has taken place. On the other h’incl, the appellant has contended that clue to tIn rash nid negligent ridiii° of the motoi bikc b tllC claimant in Sn si Kunita (;hat Sc c tion i a ii t lic inn tlsc I tii i i it ii thc lt I C C II I i(l ‘ I A 12 vehicle vety carefully in the Ohat Section. I-ooking at. the injuries sustained 1w the dairnani, therc is only a comminuted fracture of right leg and all other injuries are minor in nature. Hence, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive. 16. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is seen that though the claimant has furnished the medical bills for Rs.3,50,000/-, but the Tribunal has restricted for Rs.2.50,000/- disallowing the bills produced at Ex.P.235 and Ex.P.236 since there was no prescription of the Doctor to ptircliase the said Surgigard Steeringe gages Swab. The doctor in his evidence has not said anything about the prescription of the said Surgigard Steeringe gages Swab. In the absence of the same. the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the said bills and awarded medical espenditure of Rs.2.5O,000/-. 17. Admittedly. the claimant is running Guru Manthralayn Jewel lery Shop. The F2x. P.64 and Ex. P.65 are the sales tax returns and 11011cc issued by the (‘onunerrial ra 011K c i . vihieli It at ft clisclosc. tlnu he flS ci sales ta c15$CSSC( 1 hi tih he had claimed his income at Rs. I a.00() to Rs 20.000 p.m.. no ereclibk document has been produced iii this regard nor income tax returns. In the absence of the same. the Tribunal has taken into consideration the inc ome of the claimant at Rs.5.000 p.m. and ai ardecl compensation. The Doctor in his eiclence deposed that disabilit) of the claimant is at 10 . Iiocei. looking into the injur3 suffered b the claimant th Tribunal has taken into consideration the disabilit to an extent of 1 3 and awarded compensation of Rs. I .2b.000/ tow arcis the loss of future income due to disabilit. The claimant is aged about 3 ears. While arriving at flit tire loss of income, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier 1 4 instead of I a. Further the Tribunal has am arded onl Rs. 10,000, tow cii ds loss of aim nitic s I Ien , we hold that the compensation awni dccl b the Tribunal is not , tu hc ,y ii1 tho ‘tl ‘ fil ! l II c. ‘ \VKI IC ii’lo ( I • iii ‘ II • II lfj I iciriati i ib ‘ C I . I 14 claimant and also that he was hospitalised for a period of 91 days has awarded the compensation. Hence the appellant has not macic out any case to reduce the compensation. 18. In view of the finding arrived b us, we find that the claimant is entitled for higher compensation in respect of loss of amenities and one additional multiplier in respect of loss of future income. Accordingly, we enhance the loss ol amenities from Rs.1O,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and award one additional multiplier taking into consideration the age of the claimant and as per the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Sarala Varm&s Case. Accordingl. the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.29,000/-. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The MFA No.5851/2007 filed by the appellant! NWI(RTC is dismissed. MFA Croh.104/2008 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. ‘rh’ clztimant is entitled S • a • a. 15 for enhanced compensation of Rs.5,35000/- as against Rs.5,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Sd!.. JUDGE Sd/a JUDGE mpk/*