- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2935 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI R. GOVINDA GOWDA, S/O M. RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.38, 4TH CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD, BEHIND CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, (KSRTC) MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7435/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND XV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT BENGALURU (SCCH-19). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and XV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.7435/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under; That on 15.10.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on O.M.Road, while crossing the road in front of the K.R. Puram Police Quarters bus stop, at that time, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F- 1648 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Sathya Sai Hospital, wherein, first aid treatment was given and thereafter, to Manipal hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. The claimant spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, food, transport and other charges. 3.1 It is the case of the claimant that he was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident, he was doing Bank loan agent work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, he has become partially disabled. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3.2 On service of notice, respondent appeared through its counsel and filed written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. 3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, respondent examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked document as Ex.R1. 3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realisation and also held respondent- Corporation to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the amount within sixty days. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 3.6 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is on the lower side. The contributory negligence fastened on the claimant is erroneous as it is the duty and obligation of the driver of the KSRTC bus to have taken caution and care while driving the bus and even if a pedestrian is crossing in the area that is not earmarked for a pedestrian crossing, if the driver was careful, the accident could have been avoided. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the tribunal has taken the income on the lower side. The tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.12,500/- per month rather than Rs.9,000/- per month. He further contends that the tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads also. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, Sri F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation sustains the order of the tribunal. On the contrary, he contends that the contributory negligence ought to have been fastened more than 25%, as it is at the fault of the pedestrian that the accident occurred in a place, which was not earmarked for pedestrian crossing. There is no material placed on record with regard to the income of the claimant. The tribunal has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is correct and does not call for interference. So also, the compensation awarded other heads also does not call for interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation, a short point that would arise for consideration: “(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 7. The answer to the above in my opinion is partly in the affirmative for the reasons stated herein below: Having perused the impugned judgment and award, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and the claimant as a pedestrian is not in dispute. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income. No documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. The age of the claimant was 62 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '7', which does not call for interference. 8. PW.2-Doctor has opined the disability to an extent of 33% to the arm and 11% to the whole body, whereas, the tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%. The same is retained as no cogent material is produced to disbelieve the Doctor, though learned counsel for the Corporation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 contends that he is not the treated Doctor. Nothing prevented the Corporation from examining or producing any material contrary to what PW.2 was produced. The disability at 10% is retained. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 12 x 7 x 10%) as against Rs.75,600/- awarded by the tribunal. 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,78,587/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head. 11. The tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards transpiration, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.5,000/- under this head. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 12. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of enhancement of the income by this Court to Rs.12,500/- per month, the claimant would require atleast two months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 2) under the head loss of income during laid up period. 13. The contributory negligence awarded by the tribunal is correct, as it is apparently seen that the claimant was crossing the road, which is not designated for a pedestrian crossing and the claimant cannot expect the driver to suddenly notice a pedestrian coming in from nowhere in the middle of the road when travelling at high speed. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the contributory negligence fastened against the claimant at 10% and the same is retained. 14. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,58,728/- (minus - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 10% towards contributory negligence, i.e., Rs.39,858.7/- - rounded off to Rs.39,859/-) as against Rs.2,94,500/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 40,000.00 Medical expenses 1,78,587.00 Transportation, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000.00 Loss of future income due to disability 1,05,000.00 Future medical expenses 20,000.00 Loss of amenities of life 25,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period 25,000.00 TOTAL 3,98,587-00 Less: 10% contributory negligence 39,859-00 TOTAL 3,58,728-00 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and XV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC.No.7435/2018 is modified; iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,58,728/- as against Rs.2,94,500/- awarded by the tribunal; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:157 MFA No. 2935 of 2021 iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.2,94,500/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification; vii) The claimant would not be entitled to the interest for the delay period of 172 days; viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; ix) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. x) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN