Gopala Krishna vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The claimants in MVC Nos. 159 and 249 of 2006 on the file of MACT, Mandya have come up in these appeals impugning the common judgment dated 24.12.2010 wherein the claim petition filed in MVC No. 159/06 is allowed in awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and claim petition in MVC No. 249/2006 is dismissed holding that the claimant has not established the right to seek compensation against KSRTC whose bus is said to have caused the accident. Brief facts leading to these two appeals are as under:

"The claimant in MVC No. 159/2006 S. Shankarappa is owner of Maruthi Omni bearing No. KA 01 MA 5680. The driver of which is Gopala Krishna was the claimant in MVC No. 249/2006. According to them on 12.7.2005 when they were travelling in the aforesaid vehicle as owner and driver the said car was hit by KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 06 A 3040 due to alleged rash and negligent driving of its driver. The owner of said bus is second respondent M/s. Siddaganga Oil Extractions who had given that vehicle on hire to KSRTC for running it between Mysuru and Bengaluru. The said bus was insured with third respondent United India Insurance Company."

In the proceedings before the tribunal in one of the claim petition KSRTC was duly served which came and accepted that it had taken the vehicle on hire from Siddaganga Oil Extraction Company. Accordingly, the claim petition filed by S Shankarappa in MVC No. 159/2006 was partially allowed where the claimant having established that he has suffered fracture of left clavicle was awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. While considering his prayer that he is entitled to receive compensation for damage to his Maruthi Omni was rejected. The liability to pay compensation awarded was saddled on the insurer of the aforesaid bus and hence the claimant in MVC No. 159/2009 namely Sri. S Shankarappa has come up in this appeal in MFA No. 6395/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident as well as for damages caused to his car.

When it comes to the appeal in MFA No. 6394/2011, it is filed by the driver of the Maruthi Omni. In the said claim petition the notice to KSRTC was not served. Therefore, taking of said vehicle on hire by KSRTC was not accepted by the tribunal and dismissed his claim petition. This conduct of tribunal appears to be strange. When in the very same accident the injury suffered by the owner of the vehicle was accepted and saddled the liability on KSRTC, when it comes to the claim petition filed by Gopalakrishna, that was not considered on the ground that KSRTC was not served.

In any event it is seen that the appeal filed by the KSRTC challenging the finding of the tribunal in saddling the liability to pay compensation on KSRTC, the coordinate Bench of his court while deciding MFA No. 2055/2012 modified the very same judgment in the said proceedings and saddled the liability to pay compensation on the Insurance Company following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Others, . In that view of the matter, this court feel that both the appeals are required to be considered for enhancement of compensation filed by S. Shankarappa when admittedly the damage to his vehicle is not properly considered by the tribunal.

In that view of the matter, this court accept the appeal in MFA No. 6395/2011 and enhance the compensation payable to claimant S. Shankarappa for the injuries as well as damage to the vehicle by another sum of Rs. 20,000/-, whereby taking the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 30,000/- it is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- which the KSRTC and its insurer should collectively and severally pay.

Similarly, the case of Gopalakrishna is also required to be allowed. However, in the claim petition filed by Gopalakrishna in MVC No. 249/2006 the compensation payable to him is not assessed. In that view of the matter, by taking the evidence available on record the compensation is assessed. It is seen that the claimant has suffered muscle tear above the knee as well as below the knee of right leg, thigh. While issuing the wound certificate it was suspected that there could be fracture of knee and bone of radius of right hand and leg, however it is seen that he has suffered only muscle tear bone deep. In that view of the matter, this court feel that the claimant Gopalakrishna is entitled to following compensation in MVC No. 249/2006 who is appellant in MFA No. 6394/2011:

Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities which would sum up to Rs. 50,000/- which he is entitled to receive along with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit of compensation. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part by enhancing compensation by Rs. 20,000/- in the case of S Shankarappa in MFA No. 6395/11 and awarding compensation to Gopalakrishna in MFA No. 6394/11 to an extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Both the claimants are entitled to receive enhanced compensation with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.