Partly allowed

Divisional Controller v. Tousif S/O Maheboobsab Mujawar

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2014MFA/30117/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment affiliates two miscellaneous first appeals challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court held the accident was solely due to the driver's negligence. It set disability at 30% and enhanced compensation by Rs.1,71,000 for future loss of income and loss of earnings during treatment.

What did the court decide?

Clause dismissing the insurer's appeal; clause allowing the claimant's appeal by enhancing compensation by Rs. 1,71,000 with interest.

Divisional Controller Vs Tousif S/O Maheboobsab… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

1 MFAs 30461/13 C/w. 30117/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶6

MISCELLANEOUSFIRSTAPPEALNo.30461OF2013[MV]
C/w.
MISCELLANEOUSFIRSTAPPEALNo.30117OF2012[MV]

¶7

INMFA30461/13:
BETWEEN:
Tousif,
S/o. Maheboobsab Mujawar,
Age: 20 years,
Occ: Student & Pvt. Work,
R/o. Shastri Nagar,
Bijapur-586 101. … APPELLANT/S
 [By Sri. Sanganabasava B.Patil, Adv.]
AND:
The Divisional Controller,
NEKRTC, Divisional Office,
Athani Road,
Bijapur-586 101. … RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Sudhirsingh R.Vijapur, Adv.]

¶8

2 MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶9

 30117/12

¶10

INMFA30117/12:
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Controller,
NEKRTC, Bijapur Divisional Office,
Athani Road,
Bijapur,
Now rep. by its Chief Law Officer,
NEKRTC, Central Office,
Sarige Sadana,
Gulbarga. … APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. Sudhirsingh R.Vijapur, Adv.]
AND:
Tousif,
S/o. Maheboobsab Mujawar,
Age: 19 years,
Occ: Student & Pvt. Work,
R/o. Shastri Nagar,
Bijapur-586 101. … RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Sanganbasava B.Patil, Adv.]

¶11

* * *

¶12

These MFAs are filed under Section 173(1)
of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated
16.11.2011 passed in MVC No.69/11 on the file of
the MACT-V, Bijapur, Partly allowing the claim
petition and seeking for enhancement of
compensation and awarding compensation of
Rs.3,96,600-00 with interest at 6% p.a.
respectively.

¶13

These MFAs coming on for Admission, this
day the Court delivered the following:

¶14

MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶15

¶16

 30117/12

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

With consent of both the learned counsel,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

2. The claimant and the NEKRTC have
preferred these appeals respectively challenging
the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal in MVC
No.69/2011, granting compensation for the
injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor
vehicle accident.

¶20

 It is on 20.11.2010, at about 3.30 p.m.
when the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle,
the NEKRTC bus bearing reg. No.KA-28/F-902 came
from the hind side in rash and negligent manner
and hit the claimant, thereby he sustained
severe injuries and was treated in the hospital.
He suffered disability and therefore claimed
compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony,
loss income etc.

¶21

4 MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶22

 30117/12

¶23

The respondent-owner of the bus appeared
before the Tribunal and filed its objections
statement denying the rash and negligent manner
and also the quantum of compensation as
exorbitant and arbitrary.

¶24

The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the
doctor P.W.2. In their evidence, Exs.P1 to 14
were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of
the owner of the bus.

¶25

The Tribunal after hearing the counsel and
on appreciation of the evidence on record
granted total compensation of Rs.3,96,600-00
with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied with the
amount of compensation, the claimant has
preferred M.F.A. No.30461/2013, whereas the
other appeal is filed by the NEKRTC.

¶26

3. I have heard learned counsel for the

¶27

parties.

¶28

5 MFAs 30461/13 C/w. 30117/12

¶29

4. The points that arise for my

¶30

consideration are;

¶31

1) Whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant?

¶32

2) Whether the compensation awarded

¶33

by the Tribunal needs any variation?

¶34

5. It is the submission of learned counsel

¶35

for the claimant that the compensation awarded
is on the lower side and hence he submits to
enhance the same.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for
NEKRTC submits that the accident was due to the
negligence of the claimant himself and he
submits that the compensation awarded is on the
higher side.

¶37

6 MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶38

 30117/12

¶39

6. It is relevant to note that the charge
sheet-Ex.P5, copy of which is made available
reveals that the case was registered against the
driver of the bus. That apart, the driver is
not examined by the NEKRTC. It is in the
evidence of P.W.1 that he was proceeding on the
road and the bus came from the hind side and hit
him. Considering the material placed on record,
I am of the opinion that the accident was solely
due to the negligence of the driver of the bus.

¶40

7. So far as the compensation is
concerned, it is relevant to note that the
claimant has suffered fracture of left femur,
just above the knee. There is restriction in
movement of the knee joint. The claimant is
present before the Court, the injury and the
difficulty that he is facing while walking is
also observed. Taking into consideration the
fact that the fracture is just above the knee
joint and there are restrictions in the movement
of the knee joint, I think it would be just and

¶41

7 MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶42

 30117/12

¶43

proper to consider the disability at 30% instead

¶44

of 20% as assessed by the Tribunal. The
claimant was the student and was also doing
private job. He was aged 18 years at the time
of the accident. Taking into consideration the
salary of a labour and as the accident is of the
year 2010, it would be just and proper to
consider his income at Rs.4,500-00 p.m. Adopting
the multiplier 18 with the disability of 30% and
the income at Rs.4,500-00 p.m., the loss of
future income would be;

¶45

Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18 x 30 = Rs.2,91,600-00
 100

¶46

A sum of Rs.1,29,600-00 has been granted by the
Tribunal and deducting the same, the claimant is
entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,62,000-00.
The claimant has spent a sum of Rs.1,96,993-00
towards the treatment charges and the same has
been ordered to be paid. I do not find any
grounds to interfere with the compensation

¶47

MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶48

¶49

 30117/12

¶50

awarded on this head. So far as the loss of
income during the period of treatment, the
Tribunal has not granted any compensation.
Considering that the claimant was an in-patient
in the hospital for a period of 3 months, he is
entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000-00 towards loss of
income during the period of treatment. As the
compensation on the other heads is just and
proper, the claimant in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is entitled
to a sum of Rs.1,71,000-00 with interest at 6%
p.a.

¶51

Consequently, MFA No.30117/2012 is

¶52

dismissed. M.F.A. No.30461/13 is allowed in
part. The appellant in MFA No.30461/2013 is
entitled to a sum of Rs.1,71,000-00 with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the
petition till its payment in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

MFAs 30461/13 C/w.

¶54

¶55

The amount in deposit shall be transferred

¶56

to the Tribunal.

¶57

 Sd/-
 JUDGE.

¶58

Ksm*

Divisional Controller v. Tousif S/O Maheboobsab Mujawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller v. Tousif S/O Maheboobsab Mujawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divl Controller Ksrtc Vs Sharanabasavaraj S/O Basavaraj Patil

Siddu @ Siddanna S/O Annarao Malagatti Vs Umadevi W/O Siddabasayya Hiremath Anr.

Kashappa S/O Kallappa Parshetty Vs Laximibai W/O Mallikarjun Jamkhande

Kisansingh S/O Parasuramsingh Hajeri Vs Rachappa R Masareddy and Anr.

Divisional Controller Ksrtc, Bijapur Divn Vs Shivanand S/O Revanasiddappa Walikar

Divisional Controller Ksrtcf Vs Prashant S/O Ramappa Kirshyal