Partly allowed

The Divisional Contoller v. Smt. Sunitha

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2012MFA/387/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court condensed a first appeal in a motor accident case. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving but reduced the compensation based on calculated future prospects, directing the insurer to deposit the adjusted amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.11,98,587/- to Rs.9,56,403/- with interest at 6% p.a. Insurer ordered to deposit the adjusted amount.

The Divisional Contoller Vs Smt. Sunitha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.387 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTOLLER NWKSRTC, BELGAUM DEPOT BELGAUM.

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR INTERNAL SECUTIRY FUND K S R T C, SARIGE BHAVAN K H ROAD, BANGALORE

¶10

APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE AUTHORISED THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER HENCE NOW THROUGH THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER NWKRTC, HUBLI. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. SUNITHA W/O RAMESH @ RAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS HOUSE HOLD

¶13

MASTER THARUN S/O RAMESH @ RAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶14

¶15

MASTER RAHUL S/O RAMESH @ RAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS 4. SMT KAMALI BAI W/O CHANNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SRI CHANNA NAIK S/O LATE JAYA NAIK Amended vide AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS order dated SINCE DEAD BY LRS.] 21.7.2012 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4. RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT KARIGANUR VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP BY MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. 6. SRI NINGAPPA M CHALUVADI S/O SRI MARULAPPA CHALUVADI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA-22-F-1710 BADGE NO.90, BELAGUM DEPOT BELGAUM TALUK & DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.7.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.93/2010 (OLD NO.1161/2009) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,98,587/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The delay of 64 days in preferring the

¶21

appeal is condoned.

¶22

This appeal by the KSRTC against the award dated 12.7.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channagiri, in MVC No.1161/2009.

¶23

On 8.8.2009 at about 5.30 a.m. Ramesh Naik was travelling in KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-22-F-1710 FROM Davanagere to Bangalore on NH-4 and near K.Mallashettihalli,

¶24

the driver of the said Bus drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry bearing No.KA-16-A-6837 from hind side. As a result, Ramesh Naik sustained

¶25

grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, for

¶26

¶27

treatment and he succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital.

¶28

When the claimant filed a claim

¶29

petition, the Tribunal having held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus in question, awarded compensation of Rs.11,98,587/- on the following heads.

¶30

Towards	loss of dependency	Rs.11,68,587/-
Towards	loss of estate	Rs.5,000/-
Towards	consortium	Rs.10,000/-
Towards	love and affection	Rs.10,000/-
(Pet No each)	.2 & 3 Rs.5,000/-
Towards	funeral expenses	Rs.5,000/-
	Total	Rs.11,98,587/-

¶31

5.Having heard the counsel for the parties, taking the gross salary of the deceased atRs.4,809/-and deducting 1/4^th ,and adding30% towards `future prospects',claimants would be entitled to Rs.9,56,403/-.The compensation

¶32

¶33

of Rs.11,98,587/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.9,56,403/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is partly

¶35

allowed.

¶36

The Insurer to deposit the remaining amount within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

The Divisional Contoller v. Smt. Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Contoller v. Smt. Sunitha

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

Smt Jayamma W/O Late Narayanappa Vs T Latha W/O Thirunavukarasu

Mohan Kumar S/O Indrakumar Vs N R Vishwanatha S/O N N Raghavendra Rao

Sri Venkatarama Shetty Vs the Managing Director

Sri Karisiddegowda Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

S M Suresh Vs the Manager

Sri v Shakthivel @ Shakthivelu Vs Sri Munivenkatappa