Partly allowed

Managing Director v. Smt. Swetha @ Meka Swetha

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021MFA/2099/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of two motor accident appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against an MCAT award granting ₹3,85,000. The Court observed the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving. While upholding medical expenses and loss of amenities, the Court reduced disability compensation from ₹1 lakh to ₹50,000 due to lack of treatment by the assessing doctor. Tota

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to ₹3,35,000. interest rate reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. KSRTC directed to deposit the amount.

Managing Director Vs Smt. Swetha @ Meka Swetha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

MFA No.2099 OF 2017(MV) C/W

¶6

MFA No.1844 OF 2017(MV)

¶7

IN MFA 2099/2017 BETWEEN:

¶8

MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR KARNATAKA.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA K., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SMT. SWETHA @ MEKA SWETHA W/O. RAGHUNATH.E AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SATHYASALINI B. NARAYANAPUR BENGALURU-560 016.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)

¶15

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3518/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶17

IN MFA 1844/2017 BETWEEN:

¶18

SWETHA@ MEKA SWETHA W/O. RAGHUNATH.E AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SATHYASALINI B. NARAYANAPUR BENGALURU-560 016.

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR-572101 KARNATAKA.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. K.NAGARAJA, ADV.)

¶24

¶25

¶26

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSTION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

MFA 2099/2017 is filed by the KSRTC and MFA

¶30

1844/2017 is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC

¶31

3518/2016.

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

¶33

briefly stated are that on 17.2.2016, the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01-EG-2839 as pillion rider, at that time, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-1051 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of

¶34

¶35

the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶36

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶37

On service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the rider. The age, avocation

¶38

¶39

and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶41

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Ramachandra was examined as PW-2 and another witness as PW-3 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled

¶42

to a compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- along with

¶43

¶44

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶45

The learned counsel for the KSRTC has contended that even though the claimant was offered a job to join SCALA as software engineer with a salary Rs.27,000/- per month and produced the offer letter at Ex.P-7, she has not examined the employer. Hence, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- is on the higher side.

¶46

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 29.6% to left lower limb and 14.8% to whole body. PW-2 is not the treated doctor. She has joined the company and continued her service and there is no loss of income. Therefore, Tribunal is not justified in

¶47

¶48

awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘disability’.

¶49

Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶50

Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the KSRTC by reducing the compensation.

¶51

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶52

contended that the claimant claims that she was an engineering graduate and she was offered a job to join SCALA as software engineer with a salary Rs.27,000/- per month and she has produced the offer letter at Ex.P-7. Considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.25,000/per month.

¶53

¶54

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 29.6% to upper limb and 14.8% to whole body. She has taken rest for 3 months. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'loss of income during laid-up period' is on the lower side.

¶55

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant by enhancing the compensation.

¶56

¶57

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶58

and perused the records.

¶59

It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶60

The claimant was an Engineering graduate and she was offered a job to join SCALA as software engineer with a salary Rs.27,000/- per month and she has produced the offer letter at Ex.P-7. The Tribunal considering the evidence of the claimant, age and educational qualification of the claimant and offer letter at Ex.P-7, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.25,000/- p.m.

¶61

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Therefore, compensation of Rs.50,000/(Rs.25,000x 2 months) awarded by the Tribunal

¶62

¶63

under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’ is just and reasonable.

¶64

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained deformity of left leg, tenderness and swelling present, cut lacerated wound over left leg, comminuted fracture of both bones of left leg with gross displacement. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 29.6% to lower limb and 14.8% to whole body. PW-2 is not the treated doctor. Considering the evidence of the claimant and doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' 'loss of amenities' and ‘incidental expenses’ are just and reasonable.

¶65

In respect of awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal towards ‘disability’ is concerned, the claimant has sustained two injuries,

¶66

¶67

one is major and other is minor in nature. PW-2 is not

¶68

a treated doctor. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘disability’ is on the higher side and therefore the same is reduced from Rs.100,000/- to Rs.50,000/-

¶69

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶70

under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶71

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶72

following compensation:

¶73

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Medical expenses	90,000	90,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000	15,000
Loss of income during	50,000	50,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	50,000	50,000
Disability	100,000	50,000
Future medical expenses	30,000	30,000
Total	385,000	335,000

¶74

¶75

In the result, MFA 1844/2017 filed by the claimant is dismissed and MFA 2099/2017 filed by the KSRTC is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶76

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- as against Rs.3,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. .

¶77

In view of the Division Bench decision of this in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020),

¶78

the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.

¶79

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date

¶80

¶81

of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶82

The amount in deposit before this court is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

Managing Director v. Smt. Swetha @ Meka Swetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director v. Smt. Swetha @ Meka Swetha

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

Nagaraj Vs Kuberappa

Sri. Arun Kumar Vs M/S. Vinayaka Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri S Raju Vs L & T General Insurance Company Ltd.

T N Suvarnamma Vs R N Ravikumar

Sri K Sanjeeva Reddy Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Swetha @ Meka Swetha Vs the Managing Director