The Divisional Controller vs Smt Renuka W/O Panduranga Kamble
2023 Latest Caselaw 3737 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC-D:6343
                                                  MFA No. 24125 of 2009




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                      BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24125/2009 (MV)

            BETWEEN:

            THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
            NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION,
            BAGALKOT - 587101,
            REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
            N.W.K.R.T.C., GOKUL ROAD,
            HUBLI - 580 020.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            SMT. RENUKA W/O. PANDURANGA KAMBLE,
            AGE:43 YEARS, OCCU: CLUSTER RESOURCE PERSON
            MAHILA SAMUKHYA KARNATAKA,
            R/O. C/O. PARVATI GOPAL KURLE,
            DARBAR GALLI, ASAR ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101.
                                                           RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI HEMANTKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA           THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
BV
            VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET SIDE JUDGMENT AND
            AWARD DATED 03.09.2009 IN M.V.C.NO. 85/2008 PASSED BY THE
            COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNA NO.IV AT , BIJAPUR,
            AND DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
            AND EQUITY AND ETC.


                   THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
            COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC-D:6343
                                            MFA No. 24125 of 2009




                            JUDGMENT

The Deputy Commissioner, NWKRTC has preferred this

appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in

MVC No. 85/2008 on the file of MACT No. IV, Bijapur

(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 03.09.2009

awarding compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- with interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the

Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant in M.V.C. No.

85/2008 filed the claim petition contending that she was aged

42 years and was working as Cluster Resource Person. She

was getting honorarium of Rs.4,500/- per month. On

05.09.2007 she boarded the bus bearing reg. no. KA-29-F-596

owned by the NWKRTC at Bijapur bus stand to go to

Jamakhandi. When the bus reached near Horti village, the

driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed to the truck which was proceeding in front

of the bus. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. She

took treatment in various hospitals and suffered permanent

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6343 MFA No. 24125 of 2009

disability. Therefore, she sought for compensation from the

respondent-NWKRTC.

The claim of the claimant was resisted by the respondent/

appellant denying the entire averments made in the claim

petition. The claimant examined herself as PW2 and examined

PW3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 in support of her

contention. The Tribunal considering the contention of the

claimant along with the claim in M.V.C. No. 84/2008, passed

the common judgment awarding compensation of

Rs.1,41,000/- in favour of the claimant with interest at 6% p.a.

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

3. Heard Sri M.K. Soudagr, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, learned counsel for the

respondent.

4.. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

according to the claimant, she was working as a Cluster

Resource Person and getting honorarium of Rs.4,500/- per

month. It was not a regular job performed by the claimant

and therefore the honorarium paid cannot be considered as

income. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking into

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6343 MFA No. 24125 of 2009

consideration Ex.P.8 and assessing the monthly income at

Rs.4,500/-. Even if the notional income as on the date of

accident is to be taken into consideration, applying the

guidelines issued for settling the disputes before the Lok

Adalath, her income could not have been more than Rs.4,000/-

since the accident is of the year 2007. Hence, he prays for

allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation awarded in

favour of the claimant.

5. Perused the materials on record including the trial Court

records.

6. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is with regard to the income of the injured. As per

the materials that are placed before the Tribunal claimant

contended that she was working as a Cluster Resource Person

and was getting monthly honorarium of Rs.4,500/- Ex.P.8. The

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

honorarium that was received by the claimant cannot be

considered as her income, has no basis. Now it is settled

position of law that even a homemaker who generally would

not get any honorarium, leave alone any income of any kind, is

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6343 MFA No. 24125 of 2009

also entitled for compensation quantifying her income. When

the claimant has produced Ex.P.8 showing her income in the

form of honorarium at Rs.4,500/- per month, there are no

reasons to disbelieve the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion

tht there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I

answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Consequently, the judgment and award dated 03.09.2009

passed in M.V.C. NO. 85/2008 by the learned MACT No. IV,

Bijapur, is confirmed.

Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal,

forthwith.

SD/-

JUDGE BVV