Karnataka High Court
Smt Mary Pushpa B vs The Manager on 7 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
MFA No. 331 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT.MARY PUSHPA B.
D/O.BALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT 7TH 'A' CROSS
YAJMAN LAYOUT
NAYANAPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
NEAR ARALIMARA BUS STOP, BEGUR
BENGLAURU-560 068
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
R/AT NO.22-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX
MISSION ROAD/LALBAGH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
Digitally
signed by B
LAVANYA 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
Location: KSTDC LTD.
HIGH NO.49, 2ND FLOOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KHANIJI BHAVAN
WEST ENTRANCE
RACE COURCE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
MFA No. 331 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED IN
MVC No.2773/2019 BY XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 10.11.2021
passed in MVC.No.2773/2019 by the Court of XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT,
Bengaluru (for short 'the tribunal'). The appeal is preferred
on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation
awarded by the tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 30.03.2019, the claimant was travelling in a
Safari vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-AD-5372
along with her family members and other inmates in Safari
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
National Park, Bannerghatta to see lion safari. From the
starting point of the journey, the driver of the said vehicle
was driving in a rash and negligent manner and due to
over speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle and
applied sudden brakes, as a result of which, the said
vehicle dashed against the tree. Due to the said impact,
the claimant and other inmates sustained injuries, who
were immediately shifted to Private Nursing Home and
thereafter, shifted to St.John's Hospital for further
treatment. She was treated as inpatient for 5 days, where
she underwent surgery. Due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, she suffered permanent physical disability.
3.1 It is stated that the claimant was working as a
Principal and earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month
prior to the occurrence of accident and due to the injuries
sustained and permanent disability suffered by her, she
was unable to continue her job in the same Organisation,
which is causing financial distress and loss, so also,
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
emotional and mental agony. Hence, she filed a claim
petition seeking compensation against the respondents.
3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1-Insurance
Company filed the written statement denying the claim of
the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition
on the ground that the driver of Safari vehicle did not have
a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of
occurrence of accident, there by committed breach of
terms and conditions of policy of the insurance.
Respondent No.2, in turn, filed written statement and
pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was driving
cautiously and due to the negligence of the claimant
herself, the injuries were caused to her and that
respondent No.1 had issued policy, which was in force as
on the date of occurrence of accident, there by the
liability, if any, will have to be indemnified by respondent
No.1. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
3.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined herself as
PW.1, the Doctor as PW.3 and two other witnesses as
PWs.2 and 4 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P29.
On the contrary, the respondents got examined a witness
as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3.
3.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.3,48,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has awarded
meager compensation without taking into consideration
the materials placed on record and the fact that the
claimant was removed from the post of Principal and
another person was appointed as Principal as per Ex.P29.
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
It is also contended that the evidence adduced by PW.4-
Sri Chakkaravarthy V. substantiated the said fact and his
evidence has also been ignored by the tribunal. Therefore,
the tribunal has awarded meager compensation and the
same requires to be enhanced.
5. Learned counsels for respondents, the Insurance
Company and the owner of the offending vehicle sustain
the impugned judgment and award and contend that the
tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation,
which does not call for interference. Hence, they seek to
dismiss the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for appellant-
claimant and learned counsels for respondents.
7. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment and
award and records including the evidence of PWs.1 and 4
and the documents produced at Exs.P8 and P29, it is
necessary to remand this matter back to the jurisdictional
tribunal for consideration afresh with regard to the
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and the documents as per Exs.P8
and P29 for the reason that it is not clear as to whether
the claimant has been removed/terminated from the
employment from the said School and whether she is
appointed in any other Organisation. Though some other
person has been appointed as Principal in the said School,
sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to award suitable
compensation in the form of just and reasonable
compensation. Therefore, an opportunity is required to be
given to the respondents, who are the Insurance Company
and the owner of the offending vehicle to cross-examine
the witness on Ex.P29 to bring out the truth of the matter.
The tribunal shall decide the aspects as to whether the
claimant has been removed/terminated from the
employment from the said School and whether she is
appointed in any other Organisation, within a time bound
manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed;
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
ii) The judgment and award dated 10.11.2021
passed in MVC.No.2773/2019 by the Court of XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM,
Member-MACT, Bengaluru, is set-aside;
iii) The matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional
tribunal to consider it afresh with regard to the
limited aspect specified hereinabove including
consideration of gross salary as prescribed in
Ex.P8 rather than the basic salary considered by
the tribunal;
iv) The tribunal shall consider the matter providing a
reasonable opportunity to both parties to lead
evidence and decide the matter within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order;
v) Parties along with their respective counsels are
directed to appear before the jurisdictional
tribunal on 15.04.2024 without awaiting any
further notice either from the tribunal or this
Court;
NC: 2024:KHC:9662
vi) Registry shall return the original records to the
jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
vii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion with regard to merits of the matter;
viii) All contentions of both parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
