Partly allowed

Smt. Pavithra v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023MFA/5947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal partially, holding that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal underestimated the claimant's disability and notional income. The Court enhanced compensation on heads of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during laid-up period, while maintaining medical expenditure.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,89,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition.

Smt. Pavithra Vs the Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5947/2016 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.PAVITHRA W/O JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/A MODURU P , KOPPALU GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSURU RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE – 19 …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. V K NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.537/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Questioning the adequacy of compensation awarded to her

¶18

the claimant in M.V.C.No.537/2015 on the file of MACT and Addl. Small Causes Court, Mysore has preferred this appeal.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶21

The appellant was the claimant and the respondent

¶22

was the sole respondent before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶23

On 29.01.2015 at about 11.00 p.m., the claimant

¶24

Pavithra, her husband and their child Preeti were proceeding on scooter bearing Registration No.KA-45/L-5560 from Moduru to Kattemalawadi village. They stopped the vehicle near the shop of CW.1 on the right side. The bus bearing registration No.KA 10 F 3716 came in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant, her husband and child. Consequently, her husband died, the claimant and her daughter Preeti suffered injuries. The bus was owned by the respondent.

¶25

Regarding the incident, on the basis of the complaint by one Ramachandra, Hunsur Rural Police registered FIR as per Ex.P1 in Crime No.26/2015. On investigation, they filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus as per Ex.P10 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

¶26

The claimant filed M.V.C.No.537/2015 and her daughter filed MVC No.539/2015 seeking compensation for the

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶28

¶29

injuries suffered by them. The claimant, her daughter and parents in law filed M.V.C.No.538/2015 seeking compensation for the death of Jagadish-the claimant’s husband. They claimed that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, consequently, the injured claimants have suffered permanent physical disability on account of the accidental injuries. They claimed compensation as they lost their breadwinner and they suffered loss of dependency etc.

¶30

The respondent contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of its driver, the injuries, disability suffered by the claimants, age, occupation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

¶31

The Tribunal consolidated all the claim petitions and recorded common evidence. In support of their claim, the present appellant was examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated her was examined as PW.2. On their behalf, Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, B.A.Mahadev the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. No documentary evidence was adduced.

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶33

¶34

The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned common award held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,600/in M.V.C.No.537/2015, and Rs.13,50,000/- in M.V.C.No.538/2015 and Rs.8,000/- in M.V.C.No.539/2015. Out of the said awards, the claimant in M.V.C.No.537/2015 has challenged the award questioning the adequacy of compensation granted to her.

¶35

The compensation of Rs.1,96,600/- was awarded by

¶36

the Tribunal under the impugned award on different heads as per the table below:

¶37

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of future income	81,600/-
2.	Pain and suffering	20,000/-
3.	Loss of Income during laid up period	15,000/-
4.	Towards Nourishment Food, diet, Conveyance etc	20,000/-
5.	Medical Expenditure	50,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	10,000/-
	Total	1,96,600/-

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶40

Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that PW.2 who treated the claimant categorically stated that she has suffered 25% permanent physical disability and the Tribunal has reduced the same to 8% without any justifiable reasons. The notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded on other heads is on the lower side.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the respondent justifies the award stating that in the medical records, absolutely there is no mention about the disability suffered by the claimant and still the Tribunal considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 has assessed the disability at 8% which needs no interference. He further submits that the compensation awarded on all the heads is justifiable.

¶42

Considering the submissions of both side and the material on record, the question that arises for consideration is:

¶43

“Whether the compensation awarded under the impugned award is just one?”

¶44

ANALYSIS

¶45

Though the claimant in the claim petition contended that she had suffered injuries to head, hip joint, arms and legs

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶48

and other injuries, the evidence of PW.2, the wound certificate Ex.P9, discharge summary Ex.P11 do not show any other injuries except the injuries suffered in occipital region. The wound certificate Ex.P9 does not show other injuries spoken by her. Ex.P9 states that she had suffered injury in the occipital region. Inpatient admission record Ex.P15 shows that the claimant had suffered bilateral frontal contusion and occipital fracture.

¶49

According to PW.2, the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶50

Bilateral basic frontal haemorrhage

¶51

Subarachnoid haemorrhage

¶52

Cerebral edema and occipital contusion

¶53

Though PW.2 doctor says that after discharge of PW.1 from the hospital on 09.02.2015, she was consulting him in his clinic for follow up treatment, there were no medical records for the same. He assessed 25% intellectual disability on the basis of the alleged clinical assessment. There are no records for the assessment of such disability. He says that the claimant was treated by clinical pathologist. Even those records were not produced before the Court.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶56

PW.2 does not speak about his competence to assess the intellectual disability and there was no material to show that he was competent to assess the intellectual disability. However, considering the period of hospitalization and the nature of injuries mentioned, the Tribunal rightly considered her permanent physical disability at 8%. That does not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶57

The accident occurred in the year 2015. The claimant contended that she was doing masonry work and she claimed that she was aged 23 years. There was no actual proof of income. The Tribunal relying on the medical records rightly concluded that she was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. The applicable multiplier is 17. Considering her age, nature of occupation, wage rates and cost of living during the year 2015, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. The Tribunal should have assessed the same at Rs.9,000/- per month. Considering the disability at 8%, loss of income per month comes to Rs.720/(Rs.9,000 x 8/100). Therefore the compensation payable on the head of loss of future income comes to Rs.1,46,880/- (Rs.720 x 12 x 17).

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶59

¶60

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings. Having regard to the medical evidence and the period of hospitalization of the claimant, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs.25,000/- on that head. Similarly the compensation awarded on the head of loss of income during laid up period of three months needs to be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.27,000/- (9000 X 3).

¶61

The claimant was initially treated in K.R.Hospital, Mysore and from there she was shifted to St.Joseph Hospital, Bannimantap. She was in patient for a period of 12 days. She was from a village in Hunsur Taluk. Therefore, food nourishment, attendant charges and transportation needs to be enhanced from 20,000/- to 25,000/-. The medical expenses awarded was based on the evidence adduced by the claimant. That needs to be maintained.

¶62

Having regard to the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the medical evidence, the compensation awarded on the head of loss of amenities needs to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/-. Therefore, just compensation payable is as follows:

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶65

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of future income	1,46,880/-
2.	Pain and suffering	25,000/-
3.	Loss of Income during laid up period	27,000/-
4.	Towards Nourishment Food, diet, Conveyance etc	25,000/-
5.	Medical Expenditure	50,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	15,000/-
	Total	2,88,880/- rounded off to Rs.2,89,000/-

¶66

The appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence

¶67

the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified as follows:

¶70

a) The claimant is granted compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization payable by the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶71

b) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the said amount to the claimant digitally on furnishing the required documents.

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:19721 MFA No. 5947/2016

¶73

10 -

¶74

c) Transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Pavithra v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pavithra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjunappa Gowda Vs Sri. Karthik M T

Dr L Vijayaraj Vs Mr Rajanna

Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shriram General Ins. Co.Ltd., Vs Smt Anitha a G

Smt. Shalini S Vs Sri. Thabarej Pasha

Sri. Dal Bahaudur Vs Sri. Thimma Poojary