Claimant injured in a Safari vehicle accident at Bannerghatta appealed against inadequate compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- awarded by the MACT. The High Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the tribunal to reconsider loss of employment and gross salary evidence afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT.MARY PUSHPA B. D/O.BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 7TH 'A' CROSS YAJMAN LAYOUT NAYANAPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR ARALIMARA BUS STOP, BEGUR BENGLAURU-560 068
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC No.2773/2019 BY XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.11.2021 passed in MVC.No.2773/2019 by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). The appeal is preferred on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.
On 30.03.2019, the claimant was travelling in a
Safari vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-AD-5372 along with her family members and other inmates in Safari
National Park, Bannerghatta to see lion safari. From the starting point of the journey, the driver of the said vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner and due to over speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle and applied sudden brakes, as a result of which, the said vehicle dashed against the tree. Due to the said impact, the claimant and other inmates sustained injuries, who were immediately shifted to Private Nursing Home and thereafter, shifted to St.John's Hospital for further treatment. She was treated as inpatient for 5 days, where
she underwent surgery. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she suffered permanent physical disability.
3.1 It is stated that the claimant was working as a
Principal and earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month prior to the occurrence of accident and due to the injuries sustained and permanent disability suffered by her, she
was unable to continue her job in the same Organisation, which is causing financial distress and loss, so also,
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
emotional and mental agony. Hence, she filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents.
3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1-Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the driver of Safari vehicle did not have a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of occurrence of accident, there by committed breach of terms and conditions of policy of the insurance. Respondent No.2, in turn, filed written statement and pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was driving cautiously and due to the negligence of the claimant herself, the injuries were caused to her and that respondent No.1 had issued policy, which was in force as on the date of occurrence of accident, there by the liability, if any, will have to be indemnified by respondent No.1. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined herself as PW.1, the Doctor as PW.3 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 4 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P29.
On the contrary, the respondents got examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3.
3.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
the materials placed on record and the fact that the claimant was removed from the post of Principal and another person was appointed as Principal as per Ex.P29.
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
It is also contended that the evidence adduced by PW.4Sri Chakkaravarthy V. substantiated the said fact and his evidence has also been ignored by the tribunal. Therefore, the tribunal has awarded meager compensation and the same requires to be enhanced.
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and the documents as per Exs.P8 and P29 for the reason that it is not clear as to whether
the claimant has been removed/terminated from the employment from the said School and whether she is appointed in any other Organisation. Though some other person has been appointed as Principal in the said School, sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to award suitable compensation in the form of just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, an opportunity is required to be given to the respondents, who are the Insurance Company
and the owner of the offending vehicle to cross-examine the witness on Ex.P29 to bring out the truth of the matter. The tribunal shall decide the aspects as to whether the claimant has been removed/terminated from the employment from the said School and whether she is appointed in any other Organisation, within a time bound manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed ;
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:9662 MFA No. 331 of 2022
vi) Registry shall return the original records to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
viii) All contentions of both parties are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
LB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal was adequate, given evidence that the claimant may have been removed from employment as Principal and her gross salary was not properly considered?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. MARY PUSHPA B.
THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
MANAGING DIRECTOR KSTDC LTD.
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
