Allowed

Sheela v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021MFA/3041/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 75,000. Finding no evidence of permanent disability that reduced earning capacity, the Court rejected compensation for future income. However, it added Rs. 50,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 1,25,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 1,25,000 with 6% interest from the date of the petition.

Sheela Vs Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.3041 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHEELA D/O GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT BIDARAGUDU VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP MYSURU-570 015.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS FOR SRI B.L. SANJEEV ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.891/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

¶20

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC No.891/2016.

¶23

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 21.07.2015 at about 12 noon when the claimant namely Sheela was waiting along with Mahadevappa on the footpath of KSRTC Bus stop, Nanjangud Town, a bus bearing registration No. KA-09-F 4242 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them due to which they fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter they were taken to the hospital for treatment and incurred huge amount towards medical expenses.

¶24

The claimant namely Sheela thereupon filed a

¶25

petition under Section 166 of the Act stating that due to the

¶26

¶27

injuries sustained by her she is not in a position to do her tailoring work and has suffered physical and mental agony. She further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the driver of the bus and sought for compensation of Rs. 21,00,000/-.

¶28

The respondent-Corporation filed the written statement and denied the petition averments and also contended that the accident is not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus but, the same occurred due to the negligence of the Claimant. It was further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and sought for the dismissal of the claim petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and got Exhibited documents Exs.P.1 to P.9. The respondent did not examine any witnesses but got marked Ex.R.1 and R.2

¶30

¶31

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding any compensation under the head loss of future income having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and also her avocation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Pain and suffering' and loss of amenities'. Hence seeks for enhancing the compensation.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to substantiate her claim that she

¶34

¶35

has suffered permanent disability which has resulted in reducing the earning capacity of the claimant. It is further submitted that the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by

¶37

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the disability suffered by her resulting in reducing the earning capacity. In the absence of any evidence the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. Perusal of wound certificate at Ex.P.6 indicates that the claimant has suffered injuries to both the legs, right arm and other injuries to the body and that the claimant was an in-patient for a period of 10 days. The claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs. 25,059/-and said amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses. Though no evidence is produced with

¶38

¶39

regard to the permanent disability suffered by the claimant it would appropriate to award total sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'Pain and sufferings' and loss of amenities' having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in addition to Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal globally.

¶40

Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- as against Rs.75,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sheela v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela v. Divisional Controller

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 Mysore City Corporation Vs Smt Leela

The Regional Manager Vs Smt Chaitra

Smt Chandrakala Vs M Manju @ Manjunatha

Nitesh v Vs Karthik Dhotre

Ramakrishna Vs Suryanarayana Reddy

Smt K Laxmi Vs the Assistant Commissioner