MFA/4609/2023 of KENCHAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 23 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The claimant as well as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (for short 'TNSTC') are in appeal against the judgment and award dated 03.09.2022 in MVC.No.1672/2020 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Prl. M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.

2. The claimant is in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas the TNSTC is in appeal questioning saddling of entire liability and also quantum of compensation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.01.2020 involving TNSTC Bus bearing No.TN-29-N-2871.

4. It is stated that the injured was aged about 55 years and was working as mason, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-

HC-KAR

per month. The claim petition is filed by the wife of the injured-claimant by filing an application to prosecute the petition as next friend.

5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed its written statement denying the petition averments in toto. Further it is stated that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and baseless.

6. Before the Tribunal, wife of the injured examined herself as PW.1, apart from examining other three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 including the Doctor. The claimant also marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P24. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on consideration of material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.20,46,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization as under: Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.

Pain and Sufferings 2,00,000/-

Medical expenses 1,32,700/-

Food and nourishment, attendant charges 38,000/-

Transportation charges 10,000/-

HC-KAR

Future Maintenance of petitioner 1,00,000/-

Loss of future income due to permanent disability, loss of earning capacity 14500x12x9 15,66,000/- TOTAL 20,46,700/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant-injured at Rs.14,500/- per month and assessed the whole body as well as functional disability at 100% taking into consideration the materials on record and evidence of Doctor-PW.4. The claimant is before this Court for non-grant of compensation on the head 'future prospects' and compensation on the head of 'amenities'. Whereas the TNSTC is in appeal questioning saddling of the entire liability as well as quantum of compensation.

7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the entire appeal papers as well as Tribunal records.

8. Learned counsel Sri. Sreenivasaiah.A., for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal while properly assessing 100% disability to the whole body as well as

HC-KAR

functional disability, failed to award any compensation towards future prospects, which the claimant would be entitled at 10% of the assessed income since he was aged 55 years as on the date of accident. Learned counsel would further submit that though the Tribunal awarded compensation under the head 'pain and sufferings', failed to award any compensation under the head 'amenities'. Further, it is submitted that the compensation awarded on the other heads are on lower side and prayed to enhance the compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. B.Bopanna for the respondent-TNSTC would submit that the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the claimant but the Tribunal failed to consider the contention of respondent-TNSTC that the claimant also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Further, learned counsel would submit that the claimant carelessly crossed the road due to which the accident occurred. He would further submit that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and on the higher side. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the TNSTC and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant.

HC-KAR

10. On hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers as well as Tribunal records, the following points would arise for consideration:

(i) "Whether as contended by the TNSTC, the claimant contributed his negligence for occurrence of the accident?

(ii) Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?

Answer to the above points would in the 'Negative' and 'Affirmative' respectively for the following reasons:

11. The accident that took place on 04.01.2020 involving TNSTC Bus bearing No.TN-29-N-2871 and any grievous injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute in these appeals. The claimant examined PW.4-Doctor to establish the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment records injuries suffered by the claimant, which reads as follows:

(i) head injury;

(ii) diffuse axonal injury;

HC-KAR

(iii) diffuse SAH with right lateral ventrical IVH;

(iv) right femur comminuted fracture;

(v) left clavicle comminuted fracture and multiple ribs fracture on left side with mild pneumo Hemothorax and other multiple injuries;

(vi) The claimant underwent CRIF with PEN under SA and tracheostomy.

12. PW.4, the Doctor on examination of the medical records has opined that the claimant has suffered 68% permanent neurological disability. Moreover, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has recorded at paragraph No.24 of the Judgment that the claimant was produced before the Tribunal on 17.08.2022 by his wife and son and on questioning the claimant, it is recorded that he was unable to understand the questions and answer the same including his name and relationship with wife and son, which clearly establish that the claimant has suffered 100% functional disability.

13. In the above circumstances, there is no other material to disbelieve the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 100%.

HC-KAR

14. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.14,500/- per month notionally as no materials were placed on record to establish the income. The Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income at Rs.14,500/- per month taking note of the notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. However, the Tribunal has failed to award future prospects which the claimant would be entitled at 10% of the assessed income as he was aged 55 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head 'amenities'. Since the claimant has suffered 100% functional disability, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- on the head 'amenities'. It is stated by learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant was inpatient for 38 days. Taking note of the said fact, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and reasonable.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent-TNSTC contended that even the claimant contributed negligence for occurrence of the accident. However, no material or evidence is placed on record by the TNSTC to prove the said contention.

HC-KAR

The TNSTC has not examined the driver of the Bus. However, on the other hand, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the TNSTC Bus. In the said circumstances, no interference is needed on the findings by the Tribunal saddling entire liability on the TNSTC. Hence, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation: Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.

Pain and Sufferings 2,00,000/-

Amenities 1,00,000/-

Medical expenses 1,32,700/-

Food and nourishment, attendant charges 38,000/-

Transportation charges 10,000/-

Future Maintenance of petitioner 1,00,000/-

Loss of future income due to permanent disability, loss of earning capacity 14500+10% = 15950x12x9 17,22,600/- TOTAL 23,03,300/-

16. Thus, the compensation is modified/enhanced from Rs.20,46,700/- to Rs.23,03,300/-. The appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.23,03,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal.

HC-KAR

17. In view of the above, MFA.No.4609/2023 filed by the claimant is allowed-in-part and MFA.No.2184/2023 filed by the TNSTC is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35