Vazirbi Dastagirsab Naikwadi vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 1201 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.23385/2012(MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT.VAZIRBI DASTAGIRSAB NAIKWADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
NOW NIL, R/O: VADDARCHAVANI,
RAMANAGAR, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE - THROUGH VC)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.T.C.LIMITED,
KADAMBA TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PORVARIM, GOA.
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MANOHAR V. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
                        ---

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28-03-
2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.499/2011 BY THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM,
PARTLY   ALLOWING    THE   CLAIM    PETITION  FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
                              2




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


                      JUDGMENT

The claimant in MVC No.499/2011, being

not satisfied with the compensation awarded by

the Principal Senor Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,

Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal', for brevity), has preferred this appeal

challenging the judgment and award dated

28.03.2012.

2. Though this appeal is listed for

admission, with the consent of learned counsel

appearing on both sides, the same is taken up

for final disposal.

3. The parties to this appeal are referred

to by the rankings assigned to them before the

Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case that would

be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this

appeal are;

The claimant had filed the claim petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

before the Tribunal, claiming compensation

towards the injuries suffered by her in the road

traffic accident that had taken place on

02.10.2010 at Dharbandoda, Belgaum-Panjim

Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of

the bus bearing registration No.GA-01/X-0508,

by its driver.

The claimant along with others was

traveling in the offending bus on 02.10.2010 and

when the bus reached near the place of

accident, the driver, who was driving the

offending bus in a rash and negligent manner,

lost control on the bus and as a result, the bus

turtled and in the said accident, the claimant

and other inmates of the bus had suffered

injuries.

The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim

petition filed by the claimant herein and

awarded compensation of `83,478/- with

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization and being not satisfied with the

amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the accident is of the year 2010

and therefore, the notional income of the

claimant ought to have been taken at `5,500/-

per month, as per the income chart maintained

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

for the purpose of disposal of the motor vehicle

accident cases before the Lok Adalath. He

submits that, even under the other heads, the

compensation awarded is on the lower side.

6. I have carefully considered the

arguments addressed by the learned counsel for

the appellant and perused the material on

record.

7. The accident in question is not in

dispute and so also the involvement of the bus

bearing registration No.GA-01/X-0508 in the

said accident. The respondent is the owner-

cum-insurer of the offending vehicle. The

Tribunal while granting the compensation to the

claimant has taken into consideration the

notional income of the claimant at `3,000/- per

month. The claimant was aged about 58 years

as on the date of accident and the proper

multiplier applicable is 9. As rightly contended

by the learned counsel for the appellant, the

Tribunal ought to have taken the notional

income of the claimant at `5,500/- per month.

In the said event, if the proper multiplier

applicable and the disability at 5% as assessed

by the Tribunal is taken into consideration, the

claimant would be entitled for a compensation of

` 29,700/- (`5,500 x 12 x 9 x 5%) towards 'loss

of future earning capacity due to disability' as

against `16,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

`6,000/- towards 'loss of income during

treatment'. The claimant is entitled for a sum of

` 11,000/- under the said head as against

`6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal

has awarded only a sum of `2,000/- towards

incidental expenses. In my considered view, the

claimant is entitled for another sum of ` 5,000/-

under the said head. In all other heads, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and proper. Therefore, in all the claimant is

entitled for an additional compensation of

`23,700/-. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part.

The claimant is entitled for an enhanced

compensation of `23,700/- in addition to the

compensation of `83,478/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would

also carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till realization.

Since the liability is not disputed, the

respondent, who is the owner and insurer of the

offending vehicle, shall deposit the enhanced

amount of compensation before the Tribunal

within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Since the

enhanced amount is very meager, the claimant

shall be permitted to withdraw the entire

amount before the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab