Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, vs Renuka W/O Prakash Chakkadi @ Kovalli, on 29 May, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
M.F.A. No.21037/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOT. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri : C R MENSINKAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. RENUKA
W/O PRAKASH CHAKKADI @ KOVALLI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: YADAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. HANAMAVVA
D/O SHEKARAPPA CHAKKADI @ KOVALLI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REPTD., BY HER
SISTER RESPONDENT NO.1,
R/O: YADAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:04-10-2012,
PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT-II, BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
2
RS.2,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though there is delay in filing the appeal and an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay, the appeal itself is taken up to find out as to whether there is any merit in the appeal which would warrant issue of notice on the appeal seeking condonation of delay.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award of the Tribunal would contend that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant was negligent in causing the accident. Hence, it is contended that the liability could not have been fastened on the appellant. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same calls for interference.
3
3. In the light of the contention, I have perused the award passed by the Tribunal. The issue relating to negligence has been considered while answering issue No.1 which had been framed for its considerataion. The Tribunal in that regard has referred to the evidence which was available on record which had been produced by the claimant at Exhs.P1 to P6 to contend that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant's vehicle. In that regard, it is noticed that the driver of the appellant bus has been charge sheeted and has been proceeded against in that regard. Further it is to be noticed that the death is of a young girl of 11 years old and in any event, the negligence has been proved in the instant case as it cannot be attributed to the claimant.
4. Insofar as the quantum of compensation having noticed that the death is of a 11 year old child, the Tribunal has also referred to the evidence with regard to the child being brilliant in studies and having a great future. That apart while granting the compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-, the Tribunal has also kept in view the judgment of this Court in 4 the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Sri Subhash Kallappa Patil and another (2012 Kar. MAC 346). In the circumstances, when all evidence has been considered and the legal position has been kept in view and the award has been passed, I see no reason to interfere.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
In view of the disposal of the matter, the applications in IA-I and II are also dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/