Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Mallamma

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022MFA/450/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court heard an appeal by KSRTC against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.50,000 to an injured passenger. While upholding the negligence of the driver and the quantum of compensation, the Court reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum following its previous Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Tribunal is modified; interest rate reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

The Managing Director Vs Mallamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.450 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Division, Shanthinagara, K.H.Road, Bangalore, Now represented by North western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, Hubli, By its Chief Law Officer, Central Office Hubli. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.K.Nagaraja, Advocate) AND:

¶10

Mallamma, W/o Ramanna, Age about 61 years, R/o S S Matt Road, Devarayanapatna Post, Bandepalya, Tumkur-572104. ... Respondent

¶11

( Notice to respondent is served and unrepresented)

¶12

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:24.06.2019 passed in MVC

¶13

¶14

No.2288/2018 on the file of the 1st Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition till realization. This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶17

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for

¶18

short) has been filed by the KSRTC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) in MVC No.2288/2018.

¶19

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.11.2016 at about 3.42 p.m. the claimant was proceeding towards Herikeruru to Haveri in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-439. When the said bus reached near KSRTC bus stand, all the passengers got down and when the claimant was trying to get down from the bus, the driver of the bus without giving any

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she 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.

¶23

On service of notice, the respondent appeared

¶24

through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

¶25

¶26

claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶28

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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

¶29

held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶30

¶31

6. Sri K.Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the

¶32

Corporation has raised the following contentions:

¶33

Firstly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant herself. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. The claimant who was getting down from the bus fell down and suffered injuries and the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal has erred in fastening liability on the Corporation.

¶34

Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶35

Thirdly, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS ( MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at

¶36

¶37

9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing of the appeal.

¶38

The respondent served and unrepresented.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶40

perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶41

The case of the claimant is that on 25.11.2016 at about 3.42 p.m. the claimant was proceeding towards Herikeruru to Haveri in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-439. When the said bus reached near KSRTC bus stand, all the passengers got down and when the claimant was trying to get down from the bus, the driver of the bus without giving any signal, suddenly moved the bus. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶42

To prove her case, she has examined herself as PW-1 and examined other two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and produced 16 documents. In her evidence she has

¶43

¶44

reiterated the statement made in the claim petition. In her cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve her case. Considering the evidence of the parties

¶45

and the materials available on record the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident.

¶46

Re.quantum:

¶47

Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant

¶48

and considering the wound certificate Ex.P7, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

¶49

Re.interest:

¶50

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOYEETA BOSE (supra), the

¶51

rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a.

¶52

To that effect the appeal is allowed in part. The

¶53

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶54

¶55

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶56

compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶57

receipt of copy of this judgment .

¶58

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to

¶59

the Tribunal forthwith.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Cm/-

The Managing Director v. Mallamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Mallamma

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

Master Mohammed Thameem Vs Mr. Sachin S Suvarna

Mr.Savitram Vs Mr.Ravishankar

Smt Eramma Vs the Regional Manager

Pavan G R Vs Mahesh C S

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Revathi Shambu Shettigar

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Venkatesh