Karnataka High Court
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs K T Venkatesh on 1 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 15
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY or APRIL,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 3;sREEI§fir_ASEi§ow9A'''' 4'
M.F.A. No. 7522 of'e2d£j8%T%(Mv1f 1
BETWEEN: V ' % V
North East Kamaiaka RrJaci*
Transport Corporaflrun, ; "
Station Road, Gulbarga, '
By its Managing Director ' . ' "
represented by its V A
Chief Laiw Qifficerfl V "
" V ' Appenant
Refiauké; "Advil
A N D: '*
K. T. } Ven1«:atesh_, V' "
_{ S/{). K. 'E'h._ammI.1ag0wda,
5. __ ' '*Ag-edlabout '2'G'"years,
N0;20_¥7'..18, Ninkampaili,
!«~IiIJ,Vd'u3.:p11_1*_.~ 515 201, Anamhpur District,
" 'Ai1d"m_"_a 'Pfadesh.
.. " 'T Respondent
_§ {By'i--sri. Girimailaiah, Adv.)
"'j;T1:us MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the MV
_V 4%-.VCT'Aagainst the judgment and award dated 2908-2007
% passed in MVC N0.4492/ 2006 on the file of the XIX Adcll.
HSCJ and MACT, Metropoiitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH.17),
@
awarding a compensation of Rs.l,83,500/- with 6%
interest p.a.
This appeal coming on for Admission, the
Court, delivered the following: -.
Junamsmgfgfial
Appeal is admitted and
sides, it is taken up for final ' . V
2. This appeaiiabg} iztsarc, challenging the
compensation a.wardedV-'thy both on the
round of he Eli efice as Well as 'ularivtuliri.
3. the' sake of convenience parties are
referred"to'as 'they...are---.._referred to in the claim petition
before -the i
V' l' = . facts of the case are:
7-4-06, when the claimant was passing
l<._r1ear '1'oixi:n Hall circle at Turnkur, a KSRTC bus bearing
"'i-regis't,rati0n No. KA--34-F-581 came with high speed in a
and negligentmanner and dashed against him. As
%'
a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he
filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore;
compensation. The Tribunal awarded hini:<-- asigV'sii1*:1;""*'ot'v.
Rs.l,83,500/- with interest at 6%' »p,a.
Claim petiton till realisation.
5. The learned theWKSRTC
submits, the ciaimantziifiiasi :'theA.ii:otor oyele bearing
registration No. two of his friends
as pillion manner and
such, there is no
negligence driver of the KSRTC bus.
Thereforefthe not justified in holding that the
Ag clai_11i:ant'sustainedinjuries due to the rash and negligent
---KSRTC bus. She further submits, even
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
"._,partiet1la§:*1y towards future loss of income is on the
side and therefore, she prays for allowing the
atipeal by reducing the compensation.
fir
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for
the claimant submits, the appellant was neither'
nor a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing."registration
No. KA;--O2«8618. It is the KSRTC--.bu--s orgasm '
against the said motor eyole
claimant who was a pedestri'an"'at that. ti1n.e_".'_: lallresulttl
he sustained injuries. 'lfhereforejthe-Tlfribnnval rightly
held that the claimant injiiities due to rash
and negligent ~vdriyi":1g by its driver.
7_, .... impugned judgment
and atwfard; records of the Tribunal and
satisfied the findiiigof the Tribunal that the accident
was'-nceliirred ld'ue,__.tov rash and negligent driving of the
there is no scope for interference with
. ,_ ." l ' ._,;;phe1q{x
of the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is
fit'
8. Now I have to see whether the quantum of
compensation awarded is just and reasonable it
call for reduction.
9. The Claimant has sustained 1:-7rulti''gIe'''fraetL1re''u ,
of his skull and contusion of hisv=.bratn.f He. was adrinitted
as inpatient for about 2 days in NIlVI'Hl5il'JS '
Mallige Nursing Home.' Injuri_e's~..s_us_tainedA treatment
taken are supported vb-yfthe.Lwiotindfieleltificate --Ex. 13.5,
discharge summary -- Ex.P.1O and
disability " they are also
supported*- by. of the claimant and the
doctor exarnéinedllas 1 and 2 respectively.
the nature of injuries,
lntultiple fracture of skull, Rs.30,000/--
awai*ded"by':'the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is
M if _.and"proper and there is no scope for reduction.
%'
11. As Rs.»<1-7,335/- awarded by the Tribunal
towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills
produced by the Claimant, there is absolutely noulscyope
for reduction. In fact Rs.15,000/«~
l 1
Tribunal towards conveyance, r10u.risvlr1':rr3ei'it
attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/--
of amenities are marginallyiori-..the 3 l
12. p.w.2. the 'doctor%_iijs;s sta§ealitiigiigagg: claimant
has suffered permarie'nt" based on the
clinical reportarid out the
futurellloss' oi" the disability at 30%
and taking._'notiona}l._ineome at Rs.l5,000/- per annum
and-lawai-ded .l7{s'.8._1.,_OOO/-- towards future loss of income.
'i::-'om above facts, it is clear that the compensation
alwaitdedl Tribunal is just and reasonable and there
is no scope for reduction.
" "merits.
"Accordingly. the appeal is dismissed as devoid of
.
Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered __t_o be transferred to the Tribunal for payment. No _ 1:0 costs.
S&f;,,%n_:::%V V Mgn/--