Partly allowed

Smt. Salomi v. the Division Manager

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/3358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bus passenger injured when the KSRTC bus hit a roadside tree sought enhancement of the Rs.20,000 awarded by the Tribunal for her humerus fracture and facial injuries. The High Court re-computed compensation under conventional heads, awarding Rs.84,000 total, and after deducting interim payment enhanced the award by Rs.60,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition; KSRTC directed to deposit within eight weeks.

Smt. Salomi Vs the Division Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶6

MFA NO. 3358 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SALOMI W/O LATE SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.102, WARD NO.11 ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM K G F., KOLAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DIVISION MANAGER K S R T C, KOLAR DIVISION KOLAR-563 101 …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶13

Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.511/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C. AND MACT K.G.F., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 23.08.2016 in M.V.C.No.511/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Principal J.M.F.C. and M.A.C.T., K.G.F. ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are, on 30.05.2012 at about 04:30 am, while the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40/F-7536 on Bengaluru - Kadapa Road, near Mandyala Village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the bus was hit against the road side tree, injuring the petitioner. She was treated at Government Hospital, Srinivasapura and S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar. After taking treatment, she approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶24

of Rs.5,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the K.S.R.T.C. on the ground that there is no fault on the

¶25

driver, the petitioner was provided with a treatment and also compensation of Rs.4,000/-, she is not entitled for compensation. The Tribunal after holding enquiry and taking the evidence, by impugned judgment, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with 6% interest p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶26

Heard the arguments of

¶27

Sri. N. Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C.

¶28

It is the contention of learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner that the injured is a lady, has suffered fracture of shaft of left humerous ; she was under hospitalization, she being a Coolie and House-keeper, earning Rs.9,000/- per month; she

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶32

lost her earning; adequate compensation is not awarded by the Tribunal and he sought for enhancement.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. has contented that after the accident, the petitioner was provided with treatment, compensation of Rs.4,000/- was already paid; even before the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded which is a just compensation and there is no need for enhancement.

¶34

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the records.

¶35

The material on record did point out that the petitioner was a passenger of the bus in question. On 30.05.2012, the bus was hit against the road side tree, injuring the inmates of the bus including the petitioner. Medical records point out that the petitioner has suffered fracture of humerous bone

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶38

and facial injuries. She being a Coolie, the injury has certainly affected her; she had underwent ordeal

¶39

of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and discomfort, spent money towards conveyance, loss of income during laid-up period. A person who suffered such injuries in a road traffic accident has to be awarded just compensation. Award of compensation shall not be a peanut, nor a windfall. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads:

¶40

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Towardspain and suffering	10,000
2	Towards medical expenses,	5,000
	conveyance, nourishment
3	Towards loss of income during the treatment	5,000
	Total	20,000

¶41

9. On perusal of the impugned judgment,

¶42

though the Tribunal has referred to the fracture of humerous , did not consider awarding compensation towards pain and sufferings, medical expenses, food

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶45

and nourishment, transportation, loss of amenities and discomfort and loss of income during laid-up period. Except producing wound certificate at Ex.P5, the petitioner has not examined the Medical Officer who treated her to explain that she has suffered any disability. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has to be awarded just compensation and thereby, it is proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, medical expenses of Rs.5,000/-, food, nourishment, attendant charges, travelling expenses and transportation at Rs.4,000/-, Rs.30,000/towards loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up for 2 months. If all these are summed up, it comes

¶46

to:

¶47

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	30,000
2	Medical expenses	5,000
3	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, travelling expenses and transportation	4,000

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶50

4	Loss of amenities and	30,000
	discomfort
5	Loss of income during laid-up	15,000
	for 2 months
	Total	84,000

¶51

Since there is no medical evidence regarding disability, the petitioner cannot be awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.84,000/as against Rs.20,000/-, thereby enhancement of Rs.64,000/-. If interim compensation of Rs.4,000/- is deducted, then the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000/-. This is the just compensation that the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶54

ii) Impugned judgment and award is modified;

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:11081 MFA No. 3358 of 2017

¶57

iii) Petitioner would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization;

¶58

iv) K.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment;

¶59

v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records forthwith.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

¶62

CT:HS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt. Salomi v. the Division Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Salomi v. the Division Manager

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

Smt Rahila Banu K Vs Sri. M.K. Muhammed Shafi Saadi

Smt Farzana Vs Sri.M.K. Muhammed Shafi Saadi

Initiating Officer Under the Pbpt Act and Vs Sri. Kempe Gowda

Sri Binu Vs Sri Wilson

Mr Syed Shafir Ur Rehaman Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd.

Sri Fabby Sebastian Vs Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan