Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mahananda W/O Nagayya ... vs The Md. Nwkrtc, Central Office on 10 January, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA No.200621/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA No.200621/2017 (MV)
Between:
Smt. Mahananda
W/o Nagayya Mathpati
Age: 39 Years, Occ: Tailoring
and Hotel Business
R/o Sasalatti, Tq. Jamakhandi
Dist. Bagalkot, now residing
A Kanakadas Badawane
Vijayapur
... Appellant
(By Sri Sharanabassappa K. Babshetty, Advocate)
And:
The M.D. NWKRTC, Central Office
Gokul Road, Hubli, through the
Divisional Controller, NWKRTC
Division Office, Navanagar
Bagalkot
...Respondent
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
27.09.2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge
and MACT No.VI, Vijaypur in MVC No.1689/2014 and
2 MFA No.200621/2017
enhance the compensation amount as claimed by the
appellant.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal, appellant, who
is the petitioner has come up with this appeal under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on
24.06.2009, he was travelling in KSRTC bus. At about
2-00 p.m. near Hunnur on Jamakhandi-Banahatti
road, accident took place between KSRTC buses
bearing registration Nos.KA-09/F-2967 and KA-29/F-
630, due to the rash or negligent driving by the
drivers of both buses. Petitioner and other inmates
of the bus were injured.
4. Respondent appeared and filed written
statement disputing the age, occupation and nature of
the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed necessary issues.
6. Common evidence were recorded by the
Tribunal clubbing in all 16 petitions. The petitioner,
other claimants and the doctors were examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.21 and Ex.P.1 to 110 were marked.
7. On behalf of respondent, one witness is
examined as R.W.1.
8. Vide the impugned judgment and award,
Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.
9. In this appeal, the petitioner is seeking
enhancement contending that looking to the nature of
injuries sustained and period of treatment, the
compensation granted is on the lower side and it
requires enhancement.
10. The petitioner is a woman. At the time of
accident, she was aged 39 years. She has suffered
contusion over the left maxillary area and abrasion
over the upper lip. The doctor has issued disability
certificate stating that she has suffered 30%
permanent physical disability to the face and it is 15
to 20% of the whole body. She has taken treatment
as inpatient for five days. Taking into consideration
these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for global compensation and the
same is quantified at Rs.60,000/- i.e., in addition to
the compensation already granted by the Tribunal, the
petitioner is entitled for additional compensation in a
sum of Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant is entitled for global
compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/- in addition to
the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal
together with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation.
(iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order together with
interest.(minus compensation amount already
paid/deposited)
(iv) Send a copy of this order to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
