Smt. Shobha, W/O Arun Garud vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 12120 Kant

                                                        -1-




                                                                 MFA No. 104225 of 2017


                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                                 DHARWAD BENCH

                                    DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                     BEFORE
                                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104225 OF 2017 (MV-I)
                             BETWEEN:

                             1.   SMT. SHOBHA, W/O ARUN GARUD,
                                  AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                                  OCC: NURSE, R/O: SHEDABAL,
                                  TALUK ATHANI,
                                  DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
                                                                           ...APPELLANT
                             (BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                             AND:

                             1.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
                                  MSRTC, SANGLI,
                                  SHASTRI CIRCLE,
                                  NEAR SANGLI BUS STAND,
                                  TALUKA MIRAJ,
                                  DISTRICT SANGLI,
          Digitally signed
          by J MAMATHA            STATE MAHARASHTRA
J         Location:               (OWNER OF MSRTC BUS BEARING NO MH-40/Y-5074)
MAMATHA   Dharwad
          Date: 2022.09.27
          12:35:28 +0530                                                ...RESPONDENT
                             (BY SRI.C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

                                   THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
                             ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
                             01.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.2253/2015 ON THE FILE OF
                             THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
                             MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                             BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
                             COMPENSATION      AND    SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT      OF
                             COMPENSATION.
                                -2-




                                      MFA No. 104225 of 2017




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

                          JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The claimant before the Tribunal contended that she was

working as nurse in the Government Hospital and she met with

an accident and sustained fracture to her left leg i.e., fracture

of fibula and she was an inpatient for a period of 5 days in the

hospital and to that effect, she has produced the wound

certificate as per Ex.P.6 and also produced the disability

certificate Ex.P.7 but not examined the doctor who assessed

the disability. The claimant has also produced X-ray report and

X-ray film at Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. The Tribunal after assessing

both oral and documentary evidence has awarded

compensation of Rs.25,000/- as global compensation.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

claimant that even though the doctor has assessed the

disability at 5%, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the

same. He also submits that the compensation awarded under

MFA No. 104225 of 2017

other heads is very meager. Hence, he submits that the

impugned judgment and award calls for interference of this

Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the claimant is

working as a nurse in the Government Hospital. When she is

working as a nurse in the Government Hospital, the question of

considering loss of earning capacity does not arise. However,

taking note of the fact that the claimant was in the hospital for

a period of 5 days only and also taking into consideration the

nature of the injuries suffered i.e., fracture of fibula and the

fact that the accident is of the year 2014 and she has spent

money towards attendant charges, incidental, food and

nourishment, it is appropriate to award an amount of

Rs.50,000/- as against the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal including the amenities.

5. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part,

MFA No. 104225 of 2017

ii) The judgment and award dated 01.04.2017 passed

by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and

Addl. MACT, Belagavi, in M.V.C.No.2253/2015

stands modified.

iii) The claimant is entitled to total compensation of

Rs.50,000/- as against the sum of Rs.25,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization.

v) On deposit, the entire amount shall be released in

favour of the claimant.

vi) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the

difference amount within six weeks.

vii) The registry is directed to send back the TCR

forthwith.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

JM