Dismissed

The Regional Manager v. B Lakshmi

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2023MFA/3991/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by APSRTC against a Motor Accidents Tribunal award was dismissed. The High Court held that a coordinate bench had enhanced compensation in a related matter (MFA No.1397/2017), thereby attaining finality on the quantum. Thus, the appeal could not survive.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited before the Court is transmitted to the Tribunal for refund to the appellant if found in excess.

The Regional Manager Vs B Lakshmi — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24596 MFA No. 3991 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3991 OF 2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., CHITTORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C, MUSHIRABAD HYDERABAD.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

B. LAKSHMI, D/O. BILIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT. BHUVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 137.

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 472/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,55,200/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION FROM THE RESPONDENT.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:24596 MFA No. 3991 of 2017

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal filed by APSRTC, the respondent in MVC

¶22

No.472/2013 challenges the judgment and award passed

¶23

by the Tribunal, whereby the compensation of Rs.2,55,200/was awarded to the claimant on 23-12-2015.

¶24

The challenge is in respect of two grounds: (a) the

¶25

appellant challenges the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.2,55,200/contending that the same is highly exorbitant and there is a need for reduction of the compensation and (b) the claimant was the inmate of the TATA sumo which met with the accident with the bus belonging to the appellant herein and there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of TATA sumo in which the claimant was traveling. He submits that the said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the appellant APSRTC is not liable

¶26

to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal which

¶27

is erroneous.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24596 MFA No. 3991 of 2017

¶29

The contentions as may be found from the

¶30

impugned judgment are that, the bus belonging to the appellant herein bearing No.AP.28.Z.0475 and the Tata sumo bearing No.AP.27.C.4530 met with an accident near Papavinasham on the way to Thirupati. Obviously, the owner of the said TATA sumo and the insurer of the tata sumo are not parties in the present proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner herein is the inmate of the said TATA sumo. In the result, this is a case of composite negligence, but not a contributory negligence. The petitioner is at liberty to go against any one of the tortfeaser and he has chosen the appellant herein to prosecute for tortuous liability. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of TATA sumo cannot be sustained.

¶31

Sofar as the second contention regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is noticed that in MFA No.1397/2017 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20-7-2018, there is an

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24596 MFA No. 3991 of 2017

¶33

enhancement of the compensation from Rs.2,55,200/- to Rs.3,64,560/-. The said judgment of this Court was a meritorious judgment after hearing both the parties. Obviously, pendency of the present appeal was not brought to the notice of the Court in MFA No.1397/2017. Therefore, the question regarding quantum of compensation has attained finality in MFA No.1397/2017. In the result, the ground in respect of the quantum of compensation is also not surviving in this appeal. In the above circumstances the appeal do not survive for consideration and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶34

The amount which is in deposits before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶35

The Tribunal is at liberty to refund the amount to the appellant APSRTC, in case, it is found that it is in excess of the amount awarded to the claimant.

¶36

tsn*List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

The Regional Manager v. B Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager v. B Lakshmi

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

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Manager

Chandra Mendon Vs Ravindra Naik

Sri Dharmegowda G C Vs the Divisional Controller

Chipili Krishna B M Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Smt.Sumithra

Dhruvakumar Vs Raghu