Partly allowed

M.L. Shashi @ M.L. Shashikala v. Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2015MFA/1199/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed in part an appeal filed by the Divisional Manager of KSRTC and a motor vehicle accident compensation claimant against the Tribunal's award. The Court reduced the awarded compensation and modified the quantum after analyzing evidence regarding income, disability, and double payment on certain heads.

What did the court decide?

MFA No.1199/2014 dismissed; MFA No.8680/2013 allowed in part; compensation reduced to Rs.3,63,620/- with interest @ 8% p.a.

M.L. Shashi @ M.L. Shashikala Vs Divisional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

1 MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1199/2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8680/2013 (MV)

¶5

IN MFA No.1199/2014

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.L. SHASHI @ M.L. SHASHIKALA, D/O M.L.LINGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MAKAVALLY VILLAGE, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. (BY SRI JAGADEESH.V.N., ADV.) AND:

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C, URBAN DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. OWNER/CUSTODIAN OF BUS, KA-09/F-3076.

¶10

T.D.SHIVANNAGOWDA, S/O TIRUKANNAGOWD, #15/D, 2^ND MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, B.M.SRI NAGAR, METAGALLY, MYSORE-570015, (OWNER OF THE MC NO.KA-09/EQ 7673).

¶11

2 MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ-ALLIANZ GENERAL, INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI.HARI COMPLEX, SEETHA VILAS ROAD, MYSORE-570024.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI NAGARAJA.K., ADV. FOR R1, SRI D.RAGHU PRAKASH BABU, ADV. FOR R2, SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3)

¶15

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, K.R.PET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

IN MFA No.8680/2013

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C., URBAN DIVISION, MYSORE, OWNER/CUSTODIAN OF BUS KA-09-F-3076, NOW THROUGH THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE.

¶19

… APPELLANT

¶20

(BY SRI NAGARAJA.K., ADV.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT.M.L.SHASHI @ M.L.SHASHIKALA, D/O M.L.LINGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MAKAVALLY VILLAGE, K.R.PET TALUK - -570 024.

¶23

¶24

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶25

SRI.T.D.SHIVANNA GOWDA, S/O TIRUKANNAGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.15/D, 2^ND MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, B.M.SRI NAGAR, METAGALLY, MYSORE – 570 001, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-09-EQ-7673.

¶26

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ-ALIANZ GENERAL, INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI HARI COMPLEX, SEETHA VILAS ROAD, MYSORE – 570 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI V.N.JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.RAGHU PRAKASH BABU, ADV. FOR R2, SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3)

¶28

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.2.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL LJUDGE, JMFC, K.R.PET, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,98,620/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶29

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

While the appellant has sought for enhancement

¶32

of compensation for the injuries sustained by her in

¶33

a motor vehicle accident in MFA No.1199/2014, the

¶34

Corporation-KSRTC has challenged the quantum of

¶35

¶36

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶37

compensation granted to the injured in MFA

¶38

No.8680/2013.

¶39

Occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving and liability are not in dispute.

¶40

The injured-appellant in MFA No.1199/2014

¶41

suffered fracture of left femur and undergone surgeries on three occasions. Consequently, there was disability to an extent of 56% to the particular left lower limb. She was as student of ITI and was doing milk vending and tailoring. Hence, she made a claim for compensation.

¶42

The Tribunal after recording the evidence, granted a sum of Rs.3,98,620/- with interest at 8% p.a. Dissatisfied with the said sum, the injured has filed MFA No.1199/2014, whereas the insurer has challenged the quantum of compensation in the other appeal.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶44

¶45

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶46

The point that arises for my consideration

¶47

is:

¶48

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or it needs any variation?

¶49

Learned counsel for the injured submits

¶50

that the assessment of income and disability are on the lower side and grant of compensation on each of the heads is meager. It is also his submission that the compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’ has not been granted and therefore, he has sought for enhancement.

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶52

Corporation submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the disability at 28% in the absence of any of the evidence and he submits that

¶53

as the injured was a student, the question of granting compensation towards ‘permanent disability’ does not arise. It is also his submission that the compensation towards ‘Permanent Disability’ is

¶54

¶55

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶56

unwarranted and grant of compensation on other heads is on the higher side. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and award and to reduce the compensation awarded.

¶57

9. The injured has been examined as PW.1. In

¶58

her evidence, she states that apart from her studies as a student of ITI, she was doing tailor working and milk vending. It is only her interested version. But anyhow, the possibility of having such an avocation in addition to the studies cannot be overruled. But the time that is available for the injured to go for such an avocation would be less in view of her attendance to the college.

¶59

That apart, as could be seen from the

¶60

evidence of CW.1, the doctor who assessed the disability has not stated anything as regards the disability to the whole body. He has assessed the disability at 56% to the particular left lower limb. If that is taken into consideration and applying the

¶61

¶62

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶63

general rule, the disability caused to the whole body is 1/3^rd of the disability caused to the particular limb, it would be less than 20%. So if the aforesaid circumstances are taken into

¶64

consideration, there appears to be excess payment in a sum of Rs.75,000/- on the heads towards ‘loss of future earnings’.

¶65

The Tribunal has granted a sum of

¶66

Rs.12,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for three months and towards ‘pain and sufferings’, it has granted Rs.25,000/- and a like sum towards ‘loss of amenities’. It has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/towards ‘attendance charges, food and nourishment’ etc.,. On the basis of the bills produced, it has granted Rs.49,700/towards ‘medical expenses’. Towards disfigurement, it has granted Rs.10,000/-. But there is double payment towards compensation for ‘Permanent Disability’ at Rs.10,000/-, having granted the compensation towards ‘loss of

¶67

¶68

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶69

amenities’. Hence, the question of granting

¶70

compensation towards ‘permanent disability’ does not arise. Thereby, there appears to be excess payment of Rs.85,000/-.

¶71

It is relevant to note that the injured is a girl who was studying in ITI. She has suffered disability to an extent of 20%. This disability would come in the way of her marriage. But the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards ‘loss of future marriage prospects’. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will have be considered as compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’. If the said amount is deducted in the excess payment of Rs.85,000/-, the Tribunal has granted Rs.35,000/- in excess than what is just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, the compensation to the aforesaid extent has to be reduced.

¶72

Though it is contended that the grant of interest at 8% p.a. is on the higher side, taking

¶73

¶74

MFA No.1199/2014 C/w MFA No.8680/2013

¶75

into consideration the recent judgment of the Apex Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded.

¶76

Consequently, MFA No.1199/2014 is

¶77

dismissed. MFA No.8680/2013 is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award are modified. The injuredappellant in MFA No.1199/2014 is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,63,620/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.

¶78

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

¶79

transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

M.L. Shashi @ M.L. Shashikala v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.L. Shashi @ M.L. Shashikala v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Razak @ Razak Vs Velerian Lewis

Balachandra G Vs the Managing Director

M Lathamma Vs M/S Tata Aig General Ins Co. Ltd.

Shivalingegowda Vs Smt. Sunitha G K

Kotha Venkatappa Vs Vijayalakshmi Getmenon

Smt. Varalakshmi Vs Krishnappa M