Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Smt. Pushpa W/O Dayanand Naik

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2023MFA/103046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by NWKRTC against an Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting Rs.45.47 lakh. The Court held the compensation quantum was just and fair, and the 9% interest rate was acceptable as it aligned with other award's satisfied by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

M.V.C. No. 11/2019 award set aside; appeal dismissed; deposit transmitted to Tribunal for disbursement.

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Pushpa W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103046 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE SIRSI, (RC OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-31/F-1284) REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶15

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.11 12:37:41 +0530

¶16

SMT. PUSHPA W/O. DAYANAND NAIK, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: HANEHALLI, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶17

RAVEENA DAYANAND NAIK, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HANEHALLI, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶18

LOCHAN S/O. DAYANAND NAIK, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HANEHALLI, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶20

SMT. SUSHEELA DEVANNA NAIK, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HANEHALLI, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶21

MR. MADHAVARAJ S/O. SUBBARAJ, AGE: 41 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/O: 3/125, 3RD STREET, O, METTUPATTI, OTYAL, TAMIL NADU-600052. (RC OWNER OF MULTI AXLE GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO. NL.02/K 2442)

¶22

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 HELD SUFFICIENT) (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESP. NO.5 DISPENSED WITH) (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1)

¶26

OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

¶27

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.11/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUMTA,

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal by the Corporation is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2022 passed in MVC.No.11/2019, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.45,47,693/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization by apportioning the same in the ratio of 50:50 payable equally by the appellant/Corporation and respondent/Insurance Company to the respondent/petitioner Nos.1 to 4.

¶32

The material on record discloses that pursuant to the demise of Late Dayanand Devanna Naik, who is husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant No.4, who expired in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 07.07.2018, the claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation and other reliefs. In the said claim petition, involving K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.KA-31/F-1284 and a Multi Axle goods vehicle bearing No.NL-02/K-2442 insured by the 4^th respondent/Insurance Company, the Tribunal permitted

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶34

the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and awarded the aforesaid compensation. However, insofar as liability is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Driver of the Bus as well as Driver of Multi Axle goods vehicle were equally responsible for the accident and consequently, both the appellant/Corporation and respondent/Insurance Company were liable to the extent of 50% each towards payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/Corporation is before this Court by way of the present appeal. In this context, it is relevant to state that insofar as the impugned Judgment and Award fastening the liability to the extent 50% upon Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has accepted the award and has made payment and same has attained finality and become conclusive.

¶35

It is the specific contention of the appellant/Corporation that necessary deductions having not been made and gross salary has been taken into account by the Tribunal, resulting in awarding in a higher

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶37

compensation. However, a perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal at paragraph No.38 of the impugned Judgment for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to the compensation on various heads including loss of dependency will indicate that the same is based on correct and proper appreciation

¶38

and consideration of the entire material on record including the salary slip and consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is clearly just and fair compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under these circumstances, the contention of the appellant/Corporation that the quantum of compensation is excessive and exorbitant cannot be accepted. Insofar as contention of the appellant/Corporation that the rate of interest at 9% per annum is highly excessive is concerned, it is relevant to state that in relation to other claimants, who were injured in the very same accident in MVC.Nos.520, 622, 623, 661 of 2018 and MVC.No.185 and 173 of 2019 and MVC.No.86 of 2020, identical rate of interest at 9% per annum having been awarded by the

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶40

Tribunal in respect of said claimants, the said award of the Tribunal granting interest at 9% per annum has been accepted by the appellant/Corporation which has also satisfied the said award and as such the Corporation is clearly not entitled to resile from the same and is estopped from contending only in the present petition that the rate

¶41

of interest is to be 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum. It is also relevant to state that respondent No.4, who is also been saddled with liability to pay compensation to the extent of 50% together with interest at 9% per annum has also satisfied the award and paid the compensation. Under these peculiar and special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the Corporation is not entitled to approbate and reprobate, given the fact that the other awards, whereby 9% interest has been awarded and satisfied by the Corporation, even this contention of the appellant/corporation cannot be accepted.

¶42

Under these circumstances, we do not find any

¶43

merit in the appeal, accordingly same is hereby dismissed.

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9888-DB MFA No. 103046 of 2022

¶45

Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for

¶46

disbursement forthwith.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9

The Divisional Controller v. Smt. Pushpa W/O Dayanand Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Smt. Pushpa W/O Dayanand Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj S/O Gutteppa Chalavadi Vs M R Kulkarni

Smt Laxmi W/O Ramesh Bhovivaddar Vs Shri Ramesh S/O Durgappa Bhovivaddar

Smt. Aishwarya W/O Vishnugouda Patil Vs Sri Vishnugouda S/O Shivanagouda Patil

Smt Yallawwa Pavadappa Hullannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraj S/O. Marigeppa Bembalgi Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Vidya D/O Ramachandra Shetty Vs Sri.Nagaraj Bin Mahabaleshwar Shetty