Allowed

Sri M. Basavaraju v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023MFA/5875/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous First Appeal, the High Court of Karnataka held that the Tribunal's award of Rs.25,000/- compensation was meager and without application of mind. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing medical evidence, specifically the examination of the doctor regarding fractures and disability.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award dated 31.05.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and hearing.

Sri M. Basavaraju Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5875 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M. BASAVARAJU S/O M VEERA BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NEAR PEARL VALLEY SCHOOL, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. HALESHA R G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP, (KSRTC), K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–claimant, calling in question the judgment and award dated 31.05.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.3/2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anekal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶22

Brief facts:

¶23

On 11.04.2007 at about 4.45 a.m., the claimant

¶24

who was working as conductor in a K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-8212 and when the said bus reached near Maravapalli village, Chandragiri Mandal, on Chithur-Thirupathi Main Road, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the stationed lorry bearing registration No.AP-

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶27

04/U-6832, due to the which the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

¶28

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant-

¶29

claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a global compensation of Rs.25,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal held respondent therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶30

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶31

appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶34

The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.25,000/- only. The medical record produced viz., Wound Certificate, at Exhibit-P3, X-Ray Report at ExhibitP4, reveals that the claimant has suffered several fracture

¶35

injuries in the accident. Therefore, awarding a global compensation at Rs.25,000/- is a meager one and without any application of mind. It is submitted that the claimant has undergone furthermore surgeries and has produced additional medical documents and evidence along with application under Order-XLI, Rule-27 of CPC.

¶36

It is submitted that still implants are in the body of the claimant certainly the claimant has sustained disability, but the doctor was not examined. Therefore, just compensation is to be awarded after considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and for which disability sustained is to be assessed by the Doctor. Hence, for determining a fair and just compensation by the Tribunal after receiving the evidence by the Doctor and considering

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶39

the medical documents produced along with the application for production of additional evidence the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits involved in the case.

¶40

In such an event, the parties are given liberty to adduce any further evidence, if they are so advised including examination of the Doctor. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal.

¶41

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The appeal is Allowed.

¶44

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated

¶45

dated 31.05.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.3/2012,

¶46

¶47

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶48

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anekal is set-aside.

¶49

iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 02.03.2023 , without expecting any further notice in this regard. The Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the matter within six months from 02.03.2023, in accordance with law.

¶50

iv. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and file additional material if so advised.

¶51

v. The claimant is not entitled for interest from the date of filing of the appeal till today, i.e., the date of this order.

¶52

vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 5875 of 2017

¶55

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith

¶56

without any delay.

¶57

vii. No order as to costs.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sri M. Basavaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Basavaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prakash

Nagaraj Vs Smt Manjula

Karthikeya K Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

B v Balaram Vs Althaf

Sri.K.Nagarajachari Vs M/S Fac Sri Ram Transport Finance

Sri Sachidananda Acharya Vs Sri Subhas