Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Ankalesha @ Venkatesha S/O Pakkeerappa

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024MFA/23517/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thisappeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award challengingthe quantum of compensation received by a bus passenger injured inan RT Driver accident was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal'sfindings on income and disability, finding the award just and proper.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the deposit was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

The Branch Manager, Vs Ankalesha @ Venkatesha S/O Pakkeerappa — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23517 OF 2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BELLARY NOW REPTD., BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GUNDI SURESHA SHARANAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ANKALESHA @ VENKATESHA S/O. PAKKEERAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, EX-BARBAR, R/O: GUNDLAVADDIGERI VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY, NOW AT KAPPAGAL ROAD, BELLARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

JAMBAIAAH S/O. CHADRAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO. KA 35/ 5338, C/O: K. G. CHANDRASHEKHARA GOUDA GOUDARAPETE, KARUR VILLAGE, AND POST, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, DIST: BELLARY.

¶16

ANJINEYA S/O. THIPPESWAMY, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO. KA 35/ 5338, C/O: K. G. CHANDRASHEKHARA GOUDA GOUDARAPETE, KARUR VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.

¶17

M. GOVINDAPPA S/O. GANGADHARAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE KSRTCBUS BEARING REG. NO. KA 34/F-1029, BADGE NO. 27, HOSPET DEPOT, KSRTC, HOSPET,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶20

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HOSPET.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE R2 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYS TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC 933/2010, ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XI AT BELLARY AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC 933/2010, BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XI AT BELLARY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 22.10.2011 passed in MVC No.933/2010 by MACT XI, Bellary.

¶28

Facts of the claimant’s case in brief are that, on 9.05.2010, the claimant was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.34/F.1029 as a paid passenger from Hospet to his village. At about 12:30pm near Temple (Janda Katta) Kariganur village, Bellary road, the driver of the lorry bearing

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶30

registration No.KA.35/5338 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus from hind side. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Puttur hospital, Hospet and thereafter, he took treatment with private doctors. It is his further case that, he is aged 21 years and he is a barber earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the claimant made a petition seeking compensation.

¶31

The Tribunal, after recording the evidence

¶32

and appreciating the evidence on record, has

¶33

awarded the compensation as under:

¶34

Sl.	HEADS	Amount in Rs.
No.
1	Towards pain and suffering	50,000/-
2	Towards medical expenditure	1,000/-
3	Future loss of income on the ground of disability based on the following calculation Notional income of Rs.6,000x12x18=Rs.12,96,000/-
	12% of total amount of Rs.12,96,000/- Would be	1,55,520/-
4	Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	2,16,520/-

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶36

The insurance company has filed this

¶37

appeal challenging quantum of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority for settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat, the notional income fixed for the year 2010 is Rs.5,500/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said income. The Doctor has stated that the injured has sustained 12% permanent partial disability and the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability of 1/3^rd of the same. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 12% and the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-per month, as he was working as a barber earning Rs.200/- per day. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and award and other material placed on record.

¶43

The claimant is aged about 21 years and he is a barber. The claimant as per Ex.P-8-wound certificate, has sustained fracture to his back. PW.2 is the Doctor and he has issued Ex.P-12-disability certificate stating that the claimant has sustained 12% partial disability. The claimant is working as a barber and he has to continue to stand to do his work and the fracture to his back has caused

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶45

functional disability. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability @12% to the whole body. The Tribunal considering that the claimant was working as a barber and he had income of Rs.200 per day, has rightly taken his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier and calculated the compensation under the head loss of future income. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.

¶46

Considering, all these aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. There are no grounds for allowing the appeal and reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

In the result, the following

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13453 MFA No. 23517 of 2012

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted

¶52

to the Tribunal concerned.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

CT:ANB

¶55

Kmv

The Branch Manager, v. Ankalesha @ Venkatesha S/O Pakkeerappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Ankalesha @ Venkatesha S/O Pakkeerappa

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. Gopal @ Malagopal Vs Mehaboob Khan R.G. @ Basha

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Shri.Kallappa S/O. Rachappa Kamate

Sri Jinnapa S/O Shivappa Jamkhandi Vs Sri Mayappa S/O Nagappa Pujari

The Divisional Controller Vs Nagaraj S/O Ningappa Billali

The Divisional Controller Vs Shivakumar @ Bangari

The Divisional Controller Vs Guddappa S/O Bharamappa Battur