Single judge of High Court of Karnataka disposed two MFAs challenging an MVC award. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2,33,000 to Rs.2,87,680 by correcting income and general damages, while dismissing the Respondent-KSRTC.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,87,680 with interest @6% p.a. from the date of original petition until realization.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.4724/2015 (MV)
C/W. M.F.A.NO.6430/2015 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.4724/2015 (MV):
BETWEEN:
KUMARI. AMBIKA D/O CHANNAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHEJJAJI, DODDAHEJJAJI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. … APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.6715/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
2
IN M.F.A.NO.6430/2015 (MV):
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. … APPELLANT
(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. AMBIKA W/O CHANNAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O CHIKKAHEJJAJI, DODDAHEJJAJI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. … RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.6715/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,33,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE MFAs’ COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3
These two appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the respondent-KSRTC challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.6715/2013 dated 03.03.2015 on the file of the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bangalore (SCCH-9) questioning the quantum of compensation.
documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim
4
petition in part granting compensation of Rs.2,33,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
5
Doctor and he is the Doctor, who is practicing in private side, who came and gave the evidence and his evidence cannot be believed. Hence, it requires interference of this Court to modify the judgment and award. The counsel also would contend that even if the disability is taken note of, the same is not a functional disability and will not come in the way of discharging her duties.
perusal of the records, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
Point Nos.(i) & (ii)
perusal of the material, the claimant has sustained injuries i.e.,
6
irregular lacerated wound at medial aspect of right thigh and lacerated wound over the medial aspect of left leg with blood crush injuries. She was also inpatient for a period of 16 days in terms of Ex.P21. Having perused the nature of injuries and she was inpatient for a period of 16 days, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- on the head of pain and suffering. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the same.
taken the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month and it is her claim that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the accident is of the year 2013. In the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. The
7
Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Having considered the material available on record, no doubt, P.W.8-Doctor is not the treated Doctor and he assessed the disability at 24% to right lower limb and 8% to whole body, the Tribunal, reassessed the same and has taken the disability at 6%. Having considered the nature of injuries and though it is not a bony fracture, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC in M.F.A.No.6430/2015 that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the disability at 6% cannot be accepted.
8
disability at 6%, the loss of future income comes to Rs.1,03,680/- (8000x12x18x6/100) as against Rs.65,000/-.
9
committed by the Tribunal in considering future medical expenses.
Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,87,680/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.2,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Point No.(iii)
ORDER
10
M.V.C.No.6715/2013 dated 03.03.2015 on the file of the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bangalore (SCCH-9) is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,87,680/as against Rs.2,33,000/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum. (iii) The appellant in M.F.A.No.6430/2015 is directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks from today.
(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in the quantum of compensation awarded for the motor accident claim.
Whether the estimated disability and income were correctly assessed by the Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KUMARI. AMBIKA D/O CHANNAGANGAIAH
KUMARI. AMBIKA W/O CHANNAGANGAIAH
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
