Partly allowed

Balachandra G v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2015MFA/1207/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this first appeal, granting Rs.20,000 in addition to the Tribunal's award for a motor accident. While upholding the finding of 50% contributory negligence on the appellant, the Court enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical, and conveyance expenses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the appellant is entitled to Rs.20,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Balachandra G Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.1207/2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1207/2013 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BALACHANDRA.G., S/O G.ISHWARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O GUNDYA HOUSE, HIREBANDADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K DISTRICT.

¶7

... APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI N.V.VASANTH, ADV.) AND:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶10

... RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADV.)

¶12

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.683/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶13

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

MFA No.1207/2013

JUDGMENT

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶18

While the appellant was proceedings in the Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-19/MD-5955 as its owner/driver, an accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-02548. The appellant sustained injuries, he was treated in a hospital and he suffered disability. Hence, he made a claim for compensation.

¶19

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal held negligence to an extent of 50% on the part of both the drivers. Though it calculated the compensation at Rs.72,300/-, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.36,150/- to an extent of 50% negligence on the part of the bus driver. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and findings on negligence, the present appeal is filed.

¶20

¶21

MFA No.1207/2013

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for both the

¶23

parties.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶25

that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver and the finding on negligence is improper. It is also his submission that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶27

respondent submits that the Tribunal on appreciation of the material placed on record has rightly held negligence on the part of the appellant at 50% and granted just compensation.

¶28

Perusal of the material placed on record

¶29

reveals that the appellant was examined as PW.1, whereas the respondent has examined the driver-RW.1. They also relied upon the documents produced. Though

¶30

the compliant filed against the driver of KSRTC bus and there is no complaint against the appellant, spot

¶31

¶32

MFA No.1207/2013

¶33

mahazar and spot sketch produced at Ex.P5 and P6 would clearly reveal that at the place of accident there is a curve road and the place of accident is 18 feet in width. At the place of accident, there was 6 feet road on the side of the Maruthi Omni and 12 feet road on the side of KSRTC bus and the bus was on its left side occupying to an extent of 12 feet road. Width of the Maruthi van is comparatively less to that of the bus. In the circumstances, if the place occupied by both the vehicle looked into, it appears there is contributory negligence to an extent of 50% each of the drivers of the vehicles. It is in this context that the Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held negligence having been contributed by both the drivers of the vehicles in equal portion. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said findings.

¶34

As could be seen from the injury

¶35

certificate , the appellant has suffered the fracture of abrasion over right cheek, abrasion over right

¶36

¶37

MFA No.1207/2013

¶38

hip, communited fracture of upper end of right fibia and fracture of lower end of left radius in addition to that he has suffered two other simple injuries. The Tribunal has granted Rs.35,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and taking into consideration the nature of injuries, the disability suffered, I think, it would be proper to add a sum of Rs.15,000/- on this head.

¶39

Towards ‘loss of amenities’ only Rs.5,000/has been granted. It is relevant to note that the appellant is not entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ for the reason that he is a Government employee and he is not entitled to ‘loss of future earnings’ as he is continued in his service. In the circumstances, the compensation towards ‘loss of amenities’ has to be liberal. Hence, I think it is proper to add a sum of Rs.20,000/towards ‘loss of amenities’.

¶40

The medical expenses granted on the basis

¶41

of the bills. Towards conveyance, a sum of Rs.4,800/-

¶42

6 MFA No.1207/2013

¶43

has been granted and towards ‘food, nourishment etc.,’ Rs.2,000/- has been granted. It appears just and proper to add Rs.5,000/- on both these heads. Thereby, the compensation to be enhanced would be Rs.40,000/-. As the appellant contributed negligence to an extent of 50%, he is entitled to only 50% of the compensation aforesaid i.e., Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

¶44

Consequently, the appeal is

¶45

allowed-in-part. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Balachandra G v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balachandra G v. the Managing Director

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

Sri Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Ramakrishnaiah

Sushma Vs Honnaiah

Abdul Razak @ Razak Vs Velerian Lewis

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

Shahjahan @ Shahabuddin Vs S Samson Devaprasad