Partly allowed

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022MFA/100034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor girl for fractures. Distinguishing the Kajal case due to lower disability levels, the Court applied Master Mallikarjun principles to increase the award to Rs. 1,63,424/-, covering pain, suffering, and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,63,424/- with 6% interest from petition date; original award modified.

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari Vs the Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100034 OF 2017

¶8

(MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NETRA D/O NAGAPPA HAKARI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, WORK AND STUDENT, R/O: KUDARIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC., MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE, (OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-09/F-3297)

¶15

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA J Location: MAMATHA Dharwad Date: 2022.09.05 14:43:59 +0530

¶16

(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05-11-2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.115/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION

¶19

¶20

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶21

FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSTION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KSRTC.

¶25

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 05.11.2015 passed in MVC No.115/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT., Ranebennur (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that the claimant met with an accident on 28.06.2013, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the KSRTC., bus, as a result of which, she has sustained the injury to left foot, x-ray shows fracture of 2^nd metatarsal bone and an injury to left knee, x-ray shows fracture of lateral condyle and tibia. She was an inpatient and the Doctor examined and assessed the disability at 60% to the particular limb and the Tribunal taken only 8% disability and awarded the total compensation of Rs.93,424/-.

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the injured has suffered the fracture of 2^nd metatarsal bone and the fracture of lateral condyle, the Court has to take the notional income of the claimant.

¶30

In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 776 ,

¶31

and submits that the compensation has to be enhanced.

¶32

The learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the compensation awarded on different heads are very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶33

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KSRTC., would submit that Kajal ’s case (supra), is not applicable to the case on hand since in Kajal ’s case, there is a disability of 100% and taken 60% disability and the income of minor took as Rs.4,846/- considering the minimum wages though the girl was aged about 12 years and the same is a case of head injury resulting in 100% disability.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶36

In support of his contention, he relied upon the

¶37

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 , the disability is below 10%; awarded an amount of Rs.1 Lakh and the Court consider the loss of income of the parents and medical expenses.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶39

parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶40

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation?

¶41

(ii) What order?

¶42

Point No.(i):

¶43

Having heard the respective counsel and also the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- on the head of Pain and Suffering and the injured has suffered the fracture of 2^nd metatarsal bone and fracture of lateral condyle and tibia. Though the Doctor has assessed the disability of 60% to the particular limb but the

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶46

Tribunal considered only 8% by taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343.

¶47

Having considered the principles laid down in Mallikarjun’ s case (supra), and considered the fractures, it is appropriate to consider the disability at 10% since the claimant has suffered the injuries i.e., fracture of 2^nd metatarsal bone and fracture of lateral condyle and tibia. In terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mallikarjun’ s case (supra), which was passed in the year 2014 and this accident was taken place in the year 2013 and in the said case, the Apex Court also given the table with regard to the pain and suffering and the inconvenience caused to the parents and the medical expenses incurred and loss of future amenities and future medical expenses also and the judgment of Kajal ’s case (supra), is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶48

Having considered the material available on record and also the disability assessed by the Doctor, it is appropriate to award the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- on the head of pain and suffering since the accident was taken place in the

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶51

year 2013 and Rs.13,424/- on the head of medical expenses. Apart from that, the loss of income to the parents during the treatment period and the conveyance, diet, extra nourishment charges food and attendant charges, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head of loss of income and inconvenience to the parents, who have taken care of the minor girl. Hence, I answer point No.(i) accordingly.

¶52

In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,63,424/- as against Rs.93,424/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

Point No.(ii):

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The appeal is allowed in part. .

¶57

ii) The judgment and award dated 05.11.2015 passed in MVC No.115/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT., Ranebennur, stand modified.

¶58

iii) The claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,63,424/- as against Rs.93,424/- awarded by the Tribunal with

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 100034 of 2017

¶61

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶62

iv) The claimant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 309 days in filing the appeal in terms of the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by this Court.

¶63

v) The amount deposited by the KSRTC., is ordered to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal forthwith and directed to pay the difference amount within six weeks.

¶64

vi) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶65

cp*

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, Vs Dattatray S/O Bandopanth Patil

Husainsab Vs Smt Modinabi @ Fakrubi

Susheelavva Vs Shivananda

Mr Jahid @ Sohali Vs the State

P Yeshwanth Vs the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

Nagaraj @ Naganna S/O Katteppa, Vs Samiullah S/O Majid Sab