Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Harjit Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100: [n. kumar, j] decree in suit for declaration of title states appeal against it delay of 9 years and 7 months lower appellate court refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal second appeal held, state which represent the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant. refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out, at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. the technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations which would promote public interest and substantial justice. when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. delay was condoned. order of lower appellate court was set aside. matter remitted to lower appellate court for disposal of appeal on merits. section 5; condonation of delay - decree in suit for declaration of title states appeal against it delay of 9 years and 7 months lower appellate court refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal second appeal held, state which represent the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant. refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out, at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. the technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations which would promote public interest and substantial justice. when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. delay was condoned. order of lower appellate court was set aside. matter remitted to lower appellate court for disposal of appeal on merits. - it has come to the notice of this court that there are several tribunals also which fall a victim to such an exaggerated claim with unreliable evidence either accidentally or deliberately. it is only reasonable that courts exercise its judicial power very judiciously in these matters so that only just claims are met and awarded just compensation as an undeserving award will have also to be satisfied by the insurance companies utilising public money.t.n. vallinayagam, j.1. aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.1.2000 passed in m.v.c. no. 295 of 1996 on the file of the additional civil judge (senior division) and motor accidents claims tribunal, gulbarga, the k.s.r.t.c, has come forward with the above appeal challenging the finding on negligence and also the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal.2. the accident occurred on 27.8.1994 at about 10.30 a.m. near naikal village in shahapur taluk. it is alleged that on the date of accident, petitioners-respondents herein were travelling in a tempo bearing no. ka 33-984 and at that time k.s.r.t.c. bus bearing no. ka 32-f 110 came from the opposite side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and both the vehicles collided against each other. as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.3. the claimant in this appeal is a linesman in k.e.b. and he has claimed a sum of rs. 45,000 towards medical expenses, rs. 50,000 for shock and mental agony, rs. 15,000 towards special diet and another sum of rs. 1,90,000 for loss of income and disability.4. the injuries sustained are fracture of nasal bone and the fracture of left maxillary bone. pw 4, the doctor who treated the claimant-injured has stated that there was 8 per cent disability in respect of nasal bone and 15 per cent disability in respect of left maxillary bone. it is also claimed that he has 28 per cent disability in the whole body apart from 5 per cent disability because of disfiguration of face. the tribunal after assessing the annual income of the claimant at rs. 43,200 and applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of future income was arrived at rs. 1,12,320. to this, the learned tribunal has added another sum of rs. 36,958 towards medical expenses, rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering, rs. 7,200 towards loss of income during the period of his treatment (at the rate of rs. 3,600 per month). thus in all, the tribunal has granted rs. 1,61,478 rounded off to rs. 1,61,500 as total compensation.5. the learned counsel for the appellant points out that this is a case of head-on collision and the tribunal has not considered the said head-on collision at all. on the face of head-on collision, applying the principle of the punjab and haryana high court decision mentioned below, i feel it proper that 50 per cent negligence should be fastened on the driver of the tempo.in the case of bhai shamsher singh v. punjab state , the punjab and haryana high court has held that:where a head-on collision between two vehicles has taken place and it is on the middle of the road, it has to be held that both drivers are equally negligent in causing accident. the liability is fixed at 50 per cent each.again in another decision in new india assurance co. ltd. v. daljit kaur , the punjab and haryana high court laid down as follows:where an accident has taken place due to head-on collision between a truck and matador, it has to be held that both the drivers are guilty of rash and negligent driving.6. on the question of damages, though the grant of rs. 36,958 towards medical expenses is on the high side, i do not propose to touch upon the quantum which is granted under head of medical expenses or compensation awarded under the heads of injury, pain and suffering, or loss of income during the period of treatment, namely, rs. 49,158. but the award of rs. 1,12,320 on the question of loss of future earning capacity/income is not proper. there was no evidence to show that the claimant was reduced in rank in his job or he was sent out of the job. on the other hand, he continued in his job as linesman in k.e.b. what is to be paid to him was something under the permanent physical disability sustained by him. i deem it proper to grant a sum of rs. 20,000 towards physical permanent disability suffered by him. thus, the claimant-respondent is entitled to total compensation of rs. 69,158 rounded off to rs. 70,000. however, for the refusal of the compensation under loss of future earnings, i am fortified by my own views expressed in m.f.a. no. 4209 of 1998 disposed of on 2.4.2001 and the views expressed by learned single judge of this court in the decision in b.h. rangaiah v. h.r.v. basavaraju, : air2000kant324 , has considered this aspect wherein it is laid down as follows:this case illustrates the consequence of the apathy being displayed by the courts in claims for motor accident compensation. the courts have been lenient whenever a victim of a motor accident approaches the court and taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimants award just compensation. but, now it is discovered that it is exceeding the limits and the apathy of the court is being exploited. the present case from which the appeal is preferred is one such case where an exaggerated claim has been made for a very minor and trivial injury, if one may describe so, suffered by a person in an accident.xxx xxx xxxi am of the view that it is a totally misconceived notion that in every accident case an appropriate, reasonable compensation should be awarded irrespective of the gravity of the injury. the compensation should be, the statute contemplates a 'just' compensation and not a 'reasonable' compensation as claimed. a reasonable compensation may vary from claimant to claimant and from counsel to counsel, whereas 'just' compensation is fixed with respect to the nature of injuries sustained. in this case, there is no such injury that the claimant has sustained attracting the award of 'just' compensation. it is to be noted that claimant has taken the matter very lightly and in a most cavalier manner.the learned single judge goes on to hold that:not all injuries attract compensation. there may be trivial or inconsequential injuries which do not deserve award of any compensation.time is ripe for the courts to take judicial notice of an unhealthy trend that is growing in the motor accidents claims jurisdiction. it is high time that the tribunal takes note of the fact that there are being made exaggerated claims for compensation with respect to minor injuries sustained by accident victims describing and camouflaging it to be very serious in nature and describing the claim as made for just compensation. it has come to the notice of this court that there are several tribunals also which fall a victim to such an exaggerated claim with unreliable evidence either accidentally or deliberately. it is only reasonable that courts exercise its judicial power very judiciously in these matters so that only just claims are met and awarded just compensation as an undeserving award will have also to be satisfied by the insurance companies utilising public money.this view is followed by another single judge of this court in the decision in united india insurance co. ltd. v. d.c. rajanna : ilr2000kar3443 , while commenting upon the compensation awardable under the head of loss of future earning capacity, this court held as follows:the claims tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering, rs. 10,000 towards the loss of amenity, rs. 24,000 towards loss of earnings for a period of 3 months during the period of treatment and rs. 800 towards conveyance charges and the same are not in dispute. it is only insofar as it relates to the award of rs. 1,15,200 as compensation towards the loss of future earnings, it is contended that the question of awarding compensation under this head does not arise since there was no loss of earnings as the injured was working as the deputy manager of h.m.t. and that there was also no evidence to show that his wages have been reduced or any increments have been stopped or withheld. it is unfortunate that in almost all cases, the claims tribunal without applying its mind and appreciating the evidence, blindly award compensation under the heading 'loss of future earnings'. it has to be borne in mind, while awarding compensation for future loss of earnings, there must be evidence to show that as a result of injury, the in-come was reduced or there was loss of earnings or he was removed from service on account of disability or he is incapable of doing any work. in the absence of these factors, the question of awarding any compensation under the heading 'loss of future earnings' does not arise. it is no doubt true that in case of injury, if there is any disability, then the claimant is entitled for compensation on the heading of disability and not on the heading of 'loss of future earnings'.7. in the result, the appeal is allowed. the compensation granted by the tribunal is reduced from rs. 1,61,500 to rs. 70,000 (rupees seventy thousand only). the award of the tribunal shall stand modified. the other terms and conditions regarding the deposit and interest directed by the motor accidents claims tribunal is confirmed. the amount deposited shall be transferred to the tribunal.