SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

- 1 -

MFA No. 102540 of 2016

C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

BENCH

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102540 OF

2016 C/W.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102541 OF

2016 (MV-I)

IN MFA NO.102540/2016

BETWEEN:

1.

LATHA

W/O NINGANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDAR,

AGE: 27 YEARS,

OCC: ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,

R/O: KIRIGERI VILLAGE IN

HIREKERUR TALUK AND

HAVERI DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

NORTH WEST DIVISION,

GOKUL ROAD HOSUR,

HUBBALLI REPTD BY ITS

DEPOT MANAGER,

NWKRTC RANEBENNUR DEPOT,

- 2 -

MFA No. 102540 of 2016

C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016

RANEBENNOUR,

DISTRICT: HAVERI

(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE

KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA 17/F-1030)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC

NO.679/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND

SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.102541/2016

BETWEEN

DEEPA

W/O VEERANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDAR,

AGE: 25 YEARS,

OCC: ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WORK,

R/O: KIRIGERI VILLAGE IN

HIREKERUR TALUK AND

HAVERI DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

NORTH WEST DIVISION,

GOKUL ROAD HOSUR,

HUBBALLI REPTD BY ITS

DEPOT MANAGER, NWKRTC

RANEBENNUR DEPOT, RANEBENNUR

DISTRICT: HAVERI,

(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE

KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA 17/F-1030)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

- 3 -

MFA No. 102540 of 2016

C/W MFA No. 102541 of 2016

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC

NO.680/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND

SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with

the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

2.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

3.

These two appeals are filed by the claimants

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC

Nos.679/2013 and 680/2013.

4.

Factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the Tribunal is that on 01.07.2012 when the

claimants were proceeding in vehicle bearing No.KA-17/A-

490 from Tumminakatti village towards Harihar, at that

time a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-17/F-1030 came in a

- 4 -

rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle in

which the claimants were proceeding. As a result, both of

the claimants have sustained injuries and fracture of fibula

and displaced fracture of patella and they took treatment

as inpatients and have suffered permanent disability and

hence laid a claim before the Tribunal.

5.

The Tribunal after considering both the oral and

documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation

of Rs.98,900/- in MVC No.679/2013 and Rs.96,500/- in

MVC No.680/2013 with interest at 7% p.a. Hence, present

two

appeals

are

filed

by

the

claimants

seeking

enhancement of compensation.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

would vehemently contend that in MVC No.679/2013 the

claimant had sustained undisplaced fracture of upper 1/3rd

fibula and the same is certified as grievous and he was in

patient for 11 days. He further submits that the claimant

in MVC No.680/2013 had sustained undisplaced fracture of

- 5 -

patella bone and the Tribunal committed an error in

assessing the disability at 5% in both the cases and

compensation awarded on all the heads is very meager

and failed to take note of th disability assessed by the

doctor, who has been examined as PW.3 and hence, it

requires interference.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent-KSRTC contends that the doctor who is

examined is a known doctor who assessed the disability on

higher side and the Tribunal has taken note of evidence

which he has exaggerated and assessed the disability.

Hence, the assessed disability and the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

8.

Having heard the respective counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the

following points would arise for consideration:

i.

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error

in

not

awarding

just

and

reasonable

- 6 -

compensation in MVC Nos.679/2013 and

680/2013?

ii.

What order?

9.

Regarding Point No.1: The Tribunal has

awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head pain and

suffering in each of the claim petitions. The injured in MVC

No.679/2013 was inpatient for a period of 11 days and

claimant in MVC No.680/2013 was inpatient for a period of

13 days and having taken note of the undisplaced fracture

of patella and fibula, it is appropriate to enhance the same

to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- in both the cases.

10. The Tribunal considered the medical expenses

based on the bills which have been produced by the

claimants and hence the compensation of Rs.10,700/-

awarded in MVC No.679/2013 and Rs.8,300/- awarded in

MVC No.680/2013 does not require any interference and

the same is based on documentary evidence. On the head

food and nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded only

- 7 -

Rs.2,000/- though the claimants were inpatient for a

period of 11 and 13 days. Hence, it is appropriate to

enhance the same to Rs.10,000/- in both the cases.

11. While considering loss of income, the Tribunal

has taken monthly income of the claimants at Rs.4,000/-

and the accident is of the year 2012. Hence, the notional

income would be Rs.6,500/-. Having taken note of the

fractures sustained by the claimants, it requires three

months for uniting of fracture and for rest. Hence, the

claimants are entitled for Rs.19,500/- each on the head

loss of income in both the cases.

12. Insofar as compensation awarded towards loss

of income on account of permanent disability is concerned,

in MVC No.679/2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top