Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. T. Pallappa

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024MFA/1613/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appealed against MACT award of Rs.3,90,200/- to a claimant injured in a bus-car collision as exorbitant. The High Court retained most heads but reduced the multiplier from 8 to 5 for the 73-year-old claimant, cutting disability compensation to Rs.90,000/- and total compensation to Rs.3,36,195/- with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed-in-part; Tribunal award modified reducing compensation from Rs.3,90,195/- to Rs.3,36,195/- with 6% interest; balance to be deposited within four weeks and released to claimant.

The Divisional Manager Vs T. Pallappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1613 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISON, TUMKUR.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHANKAR GOUD G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PALLAPPA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O CHINNENAHALLI, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12^TH MARCH, 2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.412 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,90,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,40,200/- SINCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER THE HEAD OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY INTEREST.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, challenging the judgment and award dated 12^th March, 2019 passed in M.V.C.No.412 of 2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri (for short, hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and same is arbitrary.

¶22

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

On 26^th January, 2016, the claimant along with two

¶25

other persons were traveling in Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.KA-19-MB-7646 from Bengaluru to Chinnenahalli, Madhugiri Taluk. During which time, a bus

¶26

belongs to KSRTC bearing registration No.KA-06-F-864 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction, dashed against the said car.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶28

Due to occurrence of the accident, the claimant herein sustained fracture of right femur. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Madhugiri and after providing first aid, he was shifted to Hemavathi Hospital, Tumakuru, wherein, he has undergone surgery for fixing of plate and screw. In this connection, the claimant spent Rs.5,00,000/medical and other incident charges. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶29

3.2. On service of notice, respondent-Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶30

3.3. On the basis of material placed on record by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,90,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the respondent-Corporation to pay the compensation within a period of thirty days. The respondent-Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of arbitrariness in the judgment

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶33

and awarding exorbitant compensation without considering

¶34

the material on record.

¶35

Heard Sri. Shankar Goud G., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Sri. K. Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for respondentClaimant.

¶36

Perused the impugned judgment and award. The short point to be considered in this appeal is with regard to respondent-Corporation has made out a case to set-aside the judgment or reduction of compensation on the grounds urged in the appeal.

¶37

The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimant have been established by production of Exhibits P1 to P10, which are the police and medical records depicts financial expenditure incurred on the treatment taken by the claimant due to injuries sustained in the accident

¶38

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and disability of the claimant, the Tribunal on the basis of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶41

documents produced by the claimant and looking into the RTC records, so also the claimant being a Grade-I Contractor, has assessed income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income since no proof has been provided to prove the income of the claimant.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the appellantCorporation contends that the income taken by the Tribunal is higher side and same is to be reduced to Rs.9,500/- per month. However, I do not find any reason to reduce the notional income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.9,500/- as sought for

¶43

by the learned counsel appearing respondent-Corporation considering the claimant to be a Grade-I Contractor. It is not necessary in all cases to reduce or take the compensation through the notional income chart. The Tribunal and this Court is having discretion to analyse the income on the basis of the documents produced before the Court and the assertion made by the claimants before the Court. Hence, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶46

The Doctor has been examined as CW-1, who was opined disability of 45% to a limb and 15% to whole body. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same as the disability is taken at one-third as per the Government Gazette Notification and assessment was made at 15% by the Doctor, which has been accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, even on this ground, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Coming to the next aspect of applying the multiplier, the age of the claimant is seventy three years as on the date of occurrence of the accident and the multiplier ought to have been adopted at '5' rather than '8'. Hence, same is required to be reduced to '5' instead of '8'.

¶47

Under these circumstances, compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability would be Rs.90,000/- (Rs.10,000 X 12 X 5 X 15%) as against 1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- and same is retained.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶51

In respect of medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.58,195/- on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimant, which is also retained.

¶52

Towards conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- and same is retained.

¶53

Insofar as loss of income during laid-up period is concerned, the Tribunal considering the four months as laidup period, has awarded Rs.40,000/-, which is retained.

¶54

Towards future medical expenses, the Doctor has opined Rs.2,50,000/and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-. Under this head, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, same is retained.

¶55

Towards inconvenience, discomfort and future amenities, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- and same is also retained

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶58

In view of the above discussion, the claimant would

¶59

be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,36,195/- as

¶60

against Rs.3,90,195/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶61

Head	Amount (Rs.)
Towards pain and sufferings	60,000-00
Towards medical expenses	58,195-00
Towards conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses	3,000-00
Towards loss of income during laid up period	40,000-00
Towards loss of income due to permanent disability	90,000-00
Towards future medical expenses	50,000-00
Towards inconvenience, discomfort and further amenities	35,000-00
TOTAL	3,36,195-00

¶62

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

1. Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed-inpart ;

¶65

1. The judgment and award dated 12^th March, 2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri in M.V.C.No.412 of 2016 is modified;

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:9078 MFA NO.1613 OF 2020

¶68

1. The claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,36,195/- as against Rs.3,90,195/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum;

¶69

1. The respondent-Corporation shall deposit the balance amount of compensation before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order;

¶70

1. The entire amount of compensation to be released in favour of the claimant upon proper identification;

¶71

1. The statutory deposit amount along with original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶72

1. All other terms stipulated by the Tribunal stands intact.

¶73

SD/JUDGE

¶74

ARK

The Divisional Manager v. T. Pallappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. T. Pallappa

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

Sri T B Rajanna Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kumari Lakshmi G

Vasantha K a Vs Yatish N

Kottakota Shankar Reddy Vs the Managing Director

Lingarajamma Vs Managing Director

Jayalakshmi Bai Vs Sunil Kumar B P