Partly allowed

Umar v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2012MFA/1377/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal against an award by the Additional MACT, the court enhanced the compensation awarded to a bus accident victim. The judge granted an additional Rs.20,000 for loss of amenities and future income and directed the respondent to deposit the amount with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.20,000 with 6% interest directed to be deposited by the respondent.

Umar Vs Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UMAR S/O ABDUL KARIB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A TARIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. ...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI: V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI: B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.3.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.75/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶14

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Accepting the cause shown, the delay of

¶18

228 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. However, the claimant is not entitled to interest for the delay period on the enhanced compensation.

¶19

This appeal by the claimant seeking

¶20

enhancement of compensation is against the award dated 5.3.2011 passed by the Member, Additional MACT, Srirangapatna, in MVC No.75/2009.

¶21

On 17.11.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. when

¶22

the claimant was waiting for the Bus to go to his workshop, a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-3679 came in a rash and negligent manner from Mahadevapura Village side and dashed against him. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted

¶23

¶24

to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, for treatment of fracture of left tibia.

¶25

In the claim petition filed, the

¶26

Tribunal having held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus in question, awarded compensation of Rs.1,82,380/- on the following heads.

¶27

Pain and agony	Rs.25,000/-
Permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity	Rs.1,03,680/-
Medical expenses and future medical expenses	Rs.32,700/-
Incidental charges, food, diet, nourishment and transportation charges	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs.5,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period	Rs.6,000/-
Total	Rs.1,82,380/-

¶28

Not being satisfied, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

¶30

Heard.

¶31

The submission of learned counsel for

¶32

the claimant is that the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.2,000/- per month though he was earning more than Rs.6,000/- and that the compensation awarded on all the heads is insufficient. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted

¶34

that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and that the percentage of disability has to be taken at 8% to the whole body instead of 10% and submitted that there is no scope for enhancement.

¶35

Having regard to the facts of the case,

¶36

I am of the view that compensation has been awarded suitably on all the heads except 'loss

¶37

¶38

of amenities'. The claimant would be entitled to another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment in life' and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of future income due to disability'. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.20,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit,

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is partly

¶40

allowed.

¶41

The respondent to deposit the amount with interest within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

Umar v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjaneya Murthy Vs Kenchappa

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Assn (R) Vs v Harikrishnan

R a Batavia Vs M/S Elite Bakers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri M Devaraju Vs Sri K B Boraiah

Jayappa Vs P Basavaraja

Smt Sharada Vs Sri Kinnu Moolya S/O Poova Moolya