Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Smt K Nandini

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2021MFA/4537/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Partial Miscellaneous First Appeals allowed appeals partly. It modified compensation quantum, reducing interest from 9% to 6% while enhancing total compensation for disability and amenities based on medical evidence and Lok Adalat charts.

What did the court decide?

Interest reduced to 6% per annum; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,74,000 and Rs. 5,63,000 for respective claimants by modification of disability and amenity heads.

The Managing Director Vs Smt K Nandini — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4536 OF 2017 (MV) c/w

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOS. 4537 OF 2017 8683 OF 2017 AND 9120 OF 2017

¶8

In MFA No.4536 of 2017

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

The Managing Director BMTC, Sarige Bhavana Central Office Shanthinagar K H Road Bengaluru-560 027.

¶11

Now through Chief Law Officer BMTC, Bengaluru.

¶12

...Appellant

¶13

(By Shri Nagaraja K, Advocate)

¶14

AND

¶15

Smt. Padma C @ Padmavathi W/o Sri K Chandra shekar Aged about 38 years

¶16

¶17

R/at No.19, Yellappa Street Chikkamavalli Bengaluru South Basavanagudi Bengaluru-560 004.

¶18

...Respondent

¶19

(By Shri H B Somapur, Advocate)

¶20

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1029 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶21

In MFA No.4537 of 2017

¶22

BETWEEN

¶23

The Managing Director BMTC, Sarige Bhavana Central Office Shanthinagar K H Road Bengaluru-560 027.

¶24

Now through Chief Law Officer BMTC, Bengaluru.

¶25

…Appellant

¶26

(By Shri Nagaraja K, Advocate)

¶27

AND

¶28

Smt. K Nandini W/o H S Ranganatha Swamy H Aged about 37 years R/at No.16/9, I Cross

¶29

¶30

Guptha Layout, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.

¶31

...Respondent

¶32

(By Shri H B Somapur, Advocate)

¶33

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1517 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶34

In MFA No.8683 of 2017

¶35

BETWEEN

¶36

Smt. K Nandini W/o H S Ranganatha Swamy Aged about 37 years R/at No.16/9, I Cross Guptha Layout, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.

¶37

...Appellant

¶38

(By Shri H B Somapur, Advocate)

¶39

AND M/s. The Managing Director BMTC, Sarige Bhavana Central Office Shanthinagar K H Road Bengaluru-560 027.

¶40

...Respondent

¶41

(By Shri Nagaraja K, Advocate)

¶42

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award

¶43

¶44

dated 23.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1517 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶45

In MFA No.9120 of 2017

¶46

BETWEEN

¶47

Smt. Padma C @ Padmavathi W/o Sri K Chandra shekar Aged about 38 years R/at No.19, Yellappa Street Chikkamavalli Bengaluru South Basavanagudi Bengaluru-560 004.

¶48

...Appellant

¶49

(By Shri H B Somapur, Advocate)

¶50

AND M/s. The Managing Director BMTC, Sarige Bhavana Central Office Shanthinagar K H Road Bengaluru-560 027.

¶51

...Respondent

¶52

(By Shri Nagaraja K, Advocate)

¶53

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1029 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶54

¶55

These Miscellaneous First appeals coming on for orders, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶56

J U D G M E N T

¶57

These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 23^rd February, 2017, passed in MVC No.1029 and 1517 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’). MFAs 4536 and 4537 of 2017 are filed by BMTC challenging on liability and quantum; and MFAs 8683 and 9120 of 2017 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶58

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶59

The brief facts of the case are that on 05^th February, 2015, the claimant in MVC 1517 of 2015 was riding Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/HF-1712 and Claimant in MVC No.1029 of 2015 was pillion rider on K.R. Road, and when they reached near Tata Silk Farm, a BMTC bus bearing

¶60

¶61

registration No.KA-01/FA-846 dashed to the scooter and due to the said impact, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they have been shifted to Shekar Hospital and Bharathi Nursing House for immediate treatment and they continued their treatment at Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. It is the case of the claimants that they suffered permanent disability on account of the accident and as such, filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation against the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus.

¶62

On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the rider of the scooter has accounted for the accident and therefore, claim petitions deserve to be rejected. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings on record framed issues for its consideration. Claimant in MVC No.1029 of 2015 was examined as PW1 and Claimant in MVC No.1517 of 2015 was examined as PW2. The claimants examined six more witnesses as PW3 to PW8 and produced 26 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P26. The respondent examined the driver of the

¶63

¶64

bus as RW1 and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, allowed the claim petitions in part and held that the claimant in MVC No.1029 of 2015 is entitled for Rs.4,82,000/- and the claimant in MVC No.1517 of 2015 is entitled for Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per from the date of claim petitions till its realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant in MVC No.1029 of 2015 has preferred MFA 9120 of 2017 and claimant in MVC 1517 of 2015 has filed MFA 8683 of 2017 seeking enhancement of compensation. The BMTC preferred appeals in MFA 4536 and 4537 of 2017 challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of liability an quantum.

¶65

We have heard Sri H.B. Somapur, learned counsel appearing or the claimants and Sri K. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BMTC.

¶66

It is the submission of Sri H.P. Somapur, that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documents while computing just compensation to the claimants and therefore, the

¶67

¶68

claimants are entitled for compensation as required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶69

Per contra, Sri Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BMTC, argued that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the said accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter. He further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side which requires to be reduced in these appeals.

¶70

We have gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. As regards the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the BMTC with regard to liability is concerned, we have perused the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Both PW1 and PW2, in their cross-examination, stated that the driver of BMTC has caused the accident. The same has been fortified through the testimony of RW1 in his cross-examination. Moreover, the jurisdictional police have registered a criminal case against RW1 and have also filed

¶71

¶72

charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Considering the above facts and the police records, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and we do not find any infirmity in the said finding. The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-BMTC is that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is on the higher side and is not commensurate with the prevailing bank rate of interest. Taking into consideration the present rate of interest paid by the banks, we are of the view that, interest at the rate of 6% per annum, requires to be maintained in all the claim petitions. To that extent, the appeals preferred by BMTC are allowed in part.

¶73

Insofar as the appeals filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, we have perused the records and finding recorded by the Tribunal. The claimant in MFA No.8683 of 2017 (MVC No.1517 of 2015), the claimant was aged 35 years as on the date of accident and was hale and healthy prior to accident. It is stated in the claim petition that she was doing tailoring and knitting work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and because of injuries suffered in the accident, she is

¶74

¶75

not able to work as she used to, prior to accident. Considering the pain and agony undergone by the claimant, we deem it proper to award Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering; and taking into account the discomfort faced by the claimant on account of the injury sustained, we intend to award Rs.30,000/towards loss of amenities. The claimant has not produced any document in support of her avocation. Taking into account the year of accident and following the Lok Adalat chart, we deem it proper to assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and presuming that the claimant might have taken rest for three months, we award Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during the laid-up period. Considering the medicals receipts produced by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,02,000/- towards medical expenses, which is retained. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges; and towards disablement, remains unaltered. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows:

¶76

¶77

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount (in Rs.)
1	Pain and suffering	35,000
2	Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	30,000
3	Medical expenses	3,02,000
4	Loss of income during the laid-up period	27,000
5	Towards disablement	50,000
6	Towards loss of amenities	30,000
	Total	4,74,000

¶78

As regards awarding of compensation in MFA 9120 of 2017 (MVC 1029 of 2015) is concerned, the evidence of the PW3-Doctor would reveal that the claimant has suffered disability at 45% to the left upper limb and 15% to the whole body. Taking into account the evidence of PW7-Doctor, who in his cross-examination, has deposed that the fractures are united, the Tribunal had taken the disability of the claimant at 13%, which, in our view, is just and proper. However, considering the age of the claimant, we of the opinion that awarding Rs.1,50,000/- towards disablement; and considering the discomfort faced by the claimant, awarding of Rs.50,000/towards loss of amenities would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/per month, which is correct. Considering the nature of injury,

¶79

¶80

we presume that the claimant might have taken rest for three months and accordingly, we award Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The Tribunal has awarded the entire expenditure of Rs.2,21,000/- as claimed towards the medical expenses and the same is retained. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering; food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges; towards future medical expenses, remain unaltered. Hence, the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled is as follows:

¶81

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount (in Rs.)
1	Towards disablement	1,50,000
2	Towards Pain and suffering	90,000
3	Towards loss of amenities	50,000
4	Towards Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	10,000
5	Towards Medical expenses	2,21,000
6	Towards Loss of income during the laid-up period	27,000
7	Towards future medical expenses	15,000
	Total	5,63,000

¶82

In the result, we pass the following:

¶83

O R D E R

¶84

i) Appeals are allowed in part;

¶85

¶86

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,74,000/(Rupees four lakh seventy four thousand only) as against Rs.4,41,000/- in MVC No.1517 of 2015; and to Rs.5,63,000/- (rupees five lakh sixty three thousand only) as against Rs.4,82,000/- in MVC No.1029 of 2015, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation;

¶87

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as apportionment, liability and disbursement, remains intact;

¶88

iv) The Corporation shall deposit the total compensation amount along with interest determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order;

¶89

v) The aforesaid compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal;

¶90

vi) Draw modified award accordingly;

¶91

vii) The registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶92

¶93

viii) All pending IAs stand disposed of accordingly.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

Sd/JUDGE

¶96

lnn

The Managing Director v. Smt K Nandini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt K Nandini

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

Sri. Nanne Jan M Vs Sri. Raju B M

Sri K N Rangaswamy Vs Sri P M Chandra Shekar

Smt Hajira Bi Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Chandru Vs Venkatesha S

Sri. S. Kumaraswamy Vs Sri v. Shankarappa

Sri Shivappa Vs Sri Kumar @ Vijaykumar