Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Mohammad Rafiq S/O Bandesab Havaldar

Karnataka HC26 Aug 2014MFA/30251/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by KSRTC against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.12,800. The Court held that such a paltry sum did not warrant interference, dismissing the appeal without delving into liability or the statutory minimum compensation provisions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; any amount deposited was to be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

The Managing Director Vs Mohammad Rafiq S/O Bandesab… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

ON THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

¶7

M.F.A.No.30251/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE NOW R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC GULBRGA-585101

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ S/O BANDESAB HAVALDAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC.MASON R/O GACHINKATTI COLONY BIJAPUR-586101

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV.)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.765/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI BIJAPUR, PARTLY

¶17

¶18

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Aggrieved by the Judgment and award of the Tribunal granting Rs.12,800/- as compensation to the claimant, the corporation has filed this appeal questioning the quantum and the liability to satisfy the award.

¶22

Even though the amount awarded is a paltry sum, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is a question of liability and hence the quantum awarded should be overlooked.

¶23

A limit of Rs.10,000/- has been postulated in terms of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. No appeal would lie where the subject matter in dispute is less than Rs.10,000/-. Even otherwise in terms of the

¶24

¶25

Act, the minimum compensation to be granted would be Rs.50,000/- even in a case of dispute on liability. The Act was promulgated in the year 1988. We are presently in the year 2014. The limit has remained. If the value of money is to be applied, then it is just and proper that the Court should refrain from interfering purely on the question of quantum.

¶26

Hence, without going into the question of liability, in view of a paltry sum being awarded, the appeal is dismissed.

¶27

The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

sdu

The Managing Director v. Mohammad Rafiq S/O Bandesab Havaldar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Mohammad Rafiq S/O Bandesab Havaldar

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

Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jeelani Shareef S/O MD Shareef

Renuka W/O Rajkumar and Ors. Vs Jaweed Mohammed S/O Md. Siddique and Anr.

Subhaschandra S/O Sulemana Kshatri Vs Smt. Laxmibai W/O Late Sidramappa Malipatil Ors.

Saibanna S/O.Bhimshya Awasank Vs Ishwaragouda S/O. Ramanagouda Patil

Basamma Vs Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed

Maruthi S/O Shateeppa Rathod Vs Ashok S/O Dattatreya and Anr.