Sri. Basavalingayya Hiremath V. Managing Director and Assistant Traffic Manager Central Accident Branch B.M.T.C. and Sri. Hanumanthayya and Divisional Traffic Officer B.M.T.C. Corporation Accident Unit Shanthinagar

MFA/7252/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the injured claimant, Sri. Basavalingayya Hiremath, against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which partially allowed his claim for compensation due to injuries sustained in an accident involving a BMTC bus. The accident occurred when the bus driver negligently traversed speed bumps, leading to the claimant's injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,96,600 as compensation, which the claimant found insufficient, leading to this appeal. The High Court allowed the claimant to submit additional documents to prove his income, which were not available during the initial proceedings, and remanded the case for a re-assessment of the compensation amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690207 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: H R RENUKA
• Assessee Lawyers: G F HUNASIKATTIMATH
• Keywords: Compensation; Income Assessment; Injury; Motor Accident; Negligence; BMTC Bus
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR M.F.A. NO.7252 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVALINGAYYA HIREMATH S/O LATE VHM CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.144, 3RD MAIN ROAD SANGAPPA NILAYA BESIDES AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE SOMESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.F. HUNASIKATTIMATH, ADV.,) AND: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER CENTRAL ACCIDENT BRANCH B.M.T.C. BANGALORE-560027. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHAYYA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER CENTRAL ACCIDENT BRANCH B.M.T.C. BANGALORE-560027. 2 3. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER B.M.T.C. CORPORATION ACCIDENT UNIT SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.881/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH- 11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the injured claimant against the judgment dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in M.V.C.No.881/2016, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 28.12.2014, the claimant - Basavalingaiah 3 Hiremath sustained injuries in the accident which occurred near BEl Market, Ramachandrapura Cross, Bangalore, when he was traveling in a Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the BMTC' for short) bus as a passneger, due to the negligence of the driver of BMTC bus in jumping the speed bumps. Thereupon, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest on the ground that he has lost his earning capacity on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. The Respondent BMTC resisted the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred due negligence of the claimant himself in not holding on to the rods when the bus traversed the speed bumps and ditches on the road. 3. The Tribunal, thereafter, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW1, Laxman (PW2), Dr.Arun Kumar MS (PW3) and got marked documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The respondents 4 examined B Raju (RW1), however, no document was adduced on their behalf. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the injured claimant sustained injuries in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. It was further held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,96,600/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the claimant was unable to produce the following documents with regard to his income, despite due diligence being exercised by him for the procurement of the same: a. Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 dated 18.01.2017 b. Form No.16 issued by the employer dated 19.05.2015. Therefore, in order to prove the income of the claimant which as per the claimant has been assessed by the Tribunal 5 on the lower side, IA No.1/2017 is filed seeking production of additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the BMTC submitted that the additional documents sought to be produced by the claimant with regard to his income are dated 3 years subsequent to the date of accident and that such documents are of no avail for as the income of the claimant is to be assessed as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the claimant has to prove the document annexed to IA No.1/2017 before the Tribunal in accordance with law by examining the author of the said documents with regard to its contents and the Insurance Company be provided with an opportunity to cross examine the witness adducing the aforesaid document and therefore the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal with liberty to the claimant to produce the additional document before the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the documents annexed to IA No.1/2017, it 6 transpires that the claimant seeks to produce documents with regard to his income which were not available for production before the Tribunal, despite due diligence being exercised by him. Though, the IT return filed by the claimant is dated subsequent to the date of accident and does not disclose the income of the claimant as on the date of accident, the document of Tax Deductible at Source (TDS) paid by the employer dated 23.05.2015 for the tax deducted from the salary of the claimant for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 discloses that the tax at the rate of Rs.19,274/- is deducted from the salary of the of the claimant on 05.11.2014. Therefore, for the adjudication of the real controversy involved in this appeal and for the determination of just and reasonable compensation, it is necessary for the assessment of accurate income of the claimant as on the date of accident and the extent of the loss of such future income caused to him due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, we are inclined to allow the Interlocutory Application No.1/2017 field by the claimant and to take the aforesaid documents on record. Thus, the remand of the matter has become imperative as 7 the appellants have to be given an opportunity to prove the aforesaid document in accordance with law and the respondents are entitled to an opportunity to cross examine the witness proving the documents annexed to IA No.1/2017 and to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any, is available. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits and that all contentions are kept open to the parties with regard to the quantum of compensation. 6. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2017 is set aside as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, whereas, the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus in causing the accident is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in respect of the documents annexed to IA No.1/2017. The Tribunal shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Needless to state that claimant shall not be entitled to interest from the date of this judgment till the date of conclusion of the proceeding by the Claims Tribunal. 8 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss "