The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. Chikkaboregowda

Digitally signed MYSURU. by PADMASHREE 2. SRI. ANANDA, SHEKHAR DESAI S/O. CHANDRAPPA, Location: High Court Of AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Karnatka R/O. NO. 1569, 8^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MYSURU.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:20.06.2019, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34081 MFA No. 3341 of 2019

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1127/15 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MYSURU AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,66,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant/K.S.R.T.C. under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside judgment and award dated 11.04.2018 passed in MVC No.1127/2015, passed by Addl. Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru.

¶22

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶23

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34081 MFA No. 3341 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Brief facts of the case is that the injured claimant

¶27

filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation. However, the Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted Rs.3,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved with the said order, this appeal is preferred by K.S.R.T.C. and mainly contended that medical expenses to an extent of Rs.2,41,000/- was already granted by their insurer and the said amount is to be deducted from the compensation amount.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent also admitted the fact that he received the said amount from the employer. As such, he is not entitled for the said amount. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to delete the said amount of Rs.2,41,000/- from Rs.3,66,000/- and the insurer is liable to pay Rs.3,66,000/- less Rs.2,41,000/- = Rs.1,25,000/-.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:34081 MFA No. 3341 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for an

¶33

amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

¶34

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 11.04.2018 passed in MVC No.1127/2015, passed by Addl. Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, is modified.

¶37

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 /- along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,66,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34081 MFA No. 3341 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

iv. It is directed to deposit the amount payable to the claimant within one month from the date of this order.

¶41

v. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶42

vi. Amount already deposited before this court is to be transferred to MACT and excess amount if any, is to be refunded to the learned counsel for appellant, and

¶43

vii. Statutory amount deposited before this court is also to be transferred to MACT.

¶44

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶45

AKV

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

The Divisional Controller v. Sri. Chikkaboregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri. Chikkaboregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay K N Vs Teja Kumar

Sri Mahanthesha @ Malathesh Vs Sri Kariyappa T S

Sri Prathviraj Shetty Vs Mrs Sally Jose Katticaran

Mr Ramachandraiah T.R Vs the Manager

Smt Saake Suvarna @ Suvarna S Vs the Managing Director

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri B Ramadasu