Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Smt Laxmi W/O Subray Naik on 23 March, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
HUBL1',-2 %
11»: THE mm»: comm' 0}? KARNATAKA * 'f = f%_:
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAET)
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY (3«11*'w;1§«::,;~:1%;%2T§oVcVi.~'<;,;{
PRESERT
6 THE HOWBLE MR.JUSTICP}fiKk, L. MANJE.§f1¥ATfiV "
'ma HONBLE :rs4R.JLi3'rI§;:";1' RAFJi'%fij;§LIMA?H
M. E, AN0.i 1a§3§*7/%2A¢é6 .k:Mi2C)
BETWEES: T - C1
NORTH WES TRANSPGRT
CORPORATI{Z:§I, % l M
CENTRAL OFF'1C,E,*G{)K'UL mm,
:.' REPB"3 MA;iAGi:¥€daIREcToR. APPELLANT
(:'3*2*';«3:»:€':*.?.% éjm*mR, ADV. FOR SRI.H.R. BEWUR,
Maw-)
_ gxzm
1§[f~ SM? LAXMI,
1: ;~,:' _ "
Wm. SUBRAY NAIK
gags ABOUT' 37 YEARS,
' KUMARI. REVATI,
D/ G. SUBRAY NAIF:
in regard to the involvement of the appeilantfi2*e}1i.;i.;'-.4
ané in regard to the the quantmn ef cengfizjensafiefie» H
awarded to the respondents.
2. '}'he respondents the 'widow ev..1;;1ViV:1o:* % children of one Sabra}; . on account of aeeident been taken place on 13. 1 1". No.17', near Temaxnaklm of rash and bus who dashed against eesult of which he was thrown .031 e. i'a§id .side*. giitter and sustained injuries to 'his = Ai:§:erc¥':Ié1§'f<3V the claimants, the deczeaeeci was Government Hospital and later to the ,_ t aflci further be was admitted. it) :{3ovferfi.me:1: Hospital, ML¥.I'1.1C1fiSWaI' and subsequently, admitted to Panduranga Nay}: Nmsing Heme and
-thereafier again he was shifted to Gevemment Heepital, A' Honavar. He died 011 21.1.1999 on account 9:' ixljuries fix/e susfajned by him in the road trafiic accident,_.L * T116 deceased was aged about .38 years and . independent business indulging .11)..S tOflfi.VCfltii1jg"'.x,§%DI'k.v "' with the heip of his own macilitiery sum of Rs.3,{)O(}/-- to }?s.40£}'{)_[=....per :'1;(§:"1t1_1V.
3. The KSRTC} .§:ontes:%é¢i -- .t1"1--c%:_ . claiin vvpet.i'§;i0I1 on the g;mm1d that no 13.11.1998 and the 1:b:g'ti'~?,L'?_3»..<:Vc:;i"1 ": ;f1v01ved in the acci(}eI:ii.. Hiééged 12 days after the accident" KSRTC cannoi: be held 1'esp<3;1;3»i_}31e f0r.1ch&"'a<:.€:id'ént. It was also contended that 'tilt: '¥;ieé"<§aséd did not die on account of the injuries As2,1sf,ai:i3i§?i{'~._§'33.{'"him in the mad mfiic accident. The _ appéliam-'t%E{LS§TC alse denied the avecation and .jé22r?3éngs*' " of' the deceased, so 3130 the age and rciaziénshjy cf the mspondents with him.
4. The 'I'ribt.11"za1 c0:1si.ciering the evidenm let in by the parties, held that the accicient OCC1.1I'1{'€(3 an accouni: of rash and negligent driving of the b.;:x'~s::' that the deceased diced on account of this sustained by him in the said roadlrafiic K V' Tribunal considering the in<::ome ti per day awarded a total comgrfnsatidfl Qf -. Being aggrieved by thg aw'am~'§ of the Tribunal the present 13 KSRTC.
5. The Aieamcd. "fg;+~~.. LX116 appellant reiteratvififiv the appeal memo, contendal was not invoiveé in the accidcnt add tfsefél are no nexus between the .' V.''ir'giL1"1'*i.ésE»t§<1_at.1F;ave 'sustained by the deceased in the filfae cause of his death and that the q:;,am:un;1~ 4i's6mpensati9n awardced by the Tribunal is " the nlniaher side.
' Having heard the learned Counsel for the apbellam, W6 do not fad any merits ix"; the appwal for l " the following reasams:
(Q)/..
On account of the pain in the abdomen deceased'w a.s admitted te hospital where he breathed hie.' ~ have seen the medias} I"®COI'_€iS .._ae 35' 2 postmortem report. The ' v H 1 .
Ii)r.Pa:1duranga Narik Wo':1Ic1.V»«:ij7$<:10seA'{}';aa.t .§> £1.:aee"0uI1f of " L' the injuries stistained.-by thee-eeefieed i11fi{the...e{ccident he had deveicped septeeemea_, fl'heee'Vf:eet::1er{em repori Woulzgi also eiieeie_se 'éied accoum of septecemee-$1.,_:whiei32,; a.cer5;"ding"te.--}'iiIn, was developed on aecouI1t._0f the iIi§!:ig'£ti.ee,S§t;e'€ai:ied by the deceased due to inadequatemedVica1AIfé§eiiities given 1:0 the éeceaseé. r ,_,'§'he.if€}fo§7,e, we a1'e*ef..3;he opinion that the Tribunal was that there is nexus between the netgiie of ifijuries sustained by him and the cause of . A his Mn;
_ So far as quantum 01' compensation is V' CQ?i".IC(3I'I1€d, we are of the opinion that the cempensatien awarded by the 'I'rib1ma1 is on the lower side. {fig