High Court Karnataka High Court

The North West Karnataka Road … vs Somanagouda S/O Basanagouda on 18 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The North West Karnataka Road … vs Somanagouda S/O Basanagouda on 18 February, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCB AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 13th DAY 02? FEBRUARY 

BEFORE

THE HoN'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. Bo~mtsi:;~.rA'-~:::   "

M.F.A. No. 3366/2L:§o6:.¢1s'agg;"'--oo»   "
BETWEEN: A ' ' '

The North West Kamataka
Road Transport COFpOF8.f{,i0I1
Central Office, Hubli "
Represented by its
Chief Law Officer

_      "_..APPELLANT
(By Sri. ShiVakur;fi';3,Lr 'S. Badiawdagi, A--dv.}__._j

AND:

Sorna11agoi;1§1a:,  /vb.' 
Aged  years, V()cr.::;--BLi':~._sinE:ss
R/ 0,. }_J. Hallchirial

 V'  Tq: -S1':11ci_han.oor, DiSt;"Raichur

 _s1n¢e~ s:ié<:o5a:§'e:51 by LR
":.£a"- _'E':m"z;;.}:3ra1:1'm"a, W o. Somana ouda
._ 1 . . ..

A Age: 2l3~yoé1rs, Goo: Household
"Iii/o__;'J.~.Har1chinaE, Tq: Sindhanoor
Di.st.}Raichur
  RESPONDENT

Mahanta Gotzda, Adv, for impioading respdt_)

In}

MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF’ l’\/EV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDG1\/IEINT AND AWARD DT. 18.04.2006 PASSED IN_-‘MVC
NO.63/2003 ON THE FILE 0? THE CIVIL JUDGE {SR7.,_DN.}
AND PRESIDING OFFICER ADDL. MACT, R.5£I’CI§I’LIl\’.?

AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF’ Rs.1,14,062?-/gV.\§z’1*1″:§I’
IN’l’ERES’I’ gag; 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PEf1’I=’l’IQI\3~fl’lLbl;”: *

REALISATION.

THIS APPEAL comma oNq”EoiR”AQMI-issiowio.fi*’H1:A$Ti’]

DAY, THE comm’ DELIVERED THE”i:Eo;’;_Lowm_o’: _ 2 .
JUDG’1\}1}_:.:gq_: I

It is stated that;_.$hri VShiiitikiimeri.iS.’*:Bade;wa.dagi,

learned Counsel has the aplfiellant

herein. Hence _registr}:””to’indicate theoifiame of learned

Counsel the erstwhile learned
Counselifi =

T he reiis*poIr1d.eiit is dead and accordingly his wife

,.,.Sm’fi:.__iiErg¢mIna haeifiiedi the impleading application in Misc.

The application is allowed. The

leétrjiied for the appellant to amend the cause title

I I ,_Vforth\i2vi.th ; 3

The appellant-Co2″pora.tion is before this Court

I aissailing the judgmenz in MVC No.63/2003. The Tribtzzzal

has avvarcied the c:<)mpens::i£.it)I1 of Rs.1,14,0E')4,/A. The

«E

Corporation while assailing the said judgment and award
has questioned both the finding relating to negligence as"-well

as the quantum of cornpensation.

3. With regard to t.he first aspect

perusal of the gudgrnent passed lithe.’ i’*1’_ribun_a’}–_gwiou1d

indicate that the Tribunal has discus-__se”d_ this aepeet’~ oI’:.1ti’;.ei’~

matter when deciding issue W1′:-i_1e’t~.d_o_inig.g ed’, the
Tribunal has noticed the docurri’e’n’ts’ati’f§.;;s.P1 tioi-‘Si namely,
the complaint, FIR, charged sheetiai”id report as also

the post~rnorten1–report.§; th4e”~d’o.cum’eiriits relating to the

nattirefof :the Tribunal has come to the

conclusion’*t_hat the the bus was negligent. In this

regar_§d,iVti1e fact :registration of case against the driver of

.land*-._the subsequent proceedings thereto is also

ii’i2.oti’r;_ed;”v ilHvenc:ert’on the said aspect of the matter, since the

Trih’ti.nal__”has’i appreciated the evidence available on record

. hasarrived at finding of fact, I see no reason to interfere.

“A4. insofar as quantum of compensation, the Tribunal

V’ “has referred to this aspect in detaii. while deciding issue

L

No.2. Insofar as the claim in the instant case is concerned,

the Tribunal on noticing the wound certificate

note of the fact that claimant had suffered

manner stated and also other injuries.__ Injthis”regard,4_7the_ if

treatment as taken by the claimant iis_”ia1lsoii’re’ferrcCl

detail. The X–ray report andflitound’~cer’t.ifieate{fii~iassV been -. L

specifically referred to and in _this_regardhthevvdisaibility as
assessed a.t 35% was ta.i<:en into'consideration. Hence on
reckoning the income of.Ath'e.§etitioner,."a of Rs.44,064/«

is awarded t40V§-fardisl loss'.of:.futurej—earriirigs. Apart from the

said aiVnounti;*tfh_e ot1her_am'ounts awarded to the claimant is
under the oonv*ention_ai'-.heads towards paid and suffering,

loss of arnenities,';.co'nve'3}ance, nourishment and medical

"«–./Aexp¢f1sesA. all"t'l3ese aspects, compensation awarded at

Rs.:3Or,O'Of)'/l.5,l'.VlC-J..O0O/–, 20,000/– and 10,000/– respectively

are reasonable: and is just compensation. Therefore, on that

aspect ofthe matter also I see no reason to interfere.

3. Above all, what is to be noticed is that the claimant

so presently no more and the Wife of the claimant now

before this Court and as such she shouid be entitled. to

lg,

receive the eomper2.sat.ior1 at this point of iime. Her1c:e_.._1_ see

no reason $0 interfere with the judgment and award

by the Tribunal. The amount if any avaikabiee’:bei”ofe.:”£hTiS~.a’*

Court shakk be immediately tra11smi£At»ed_to VI?’:”..i:v’:_31.L1.VI”1f3.’_’fA.VfO’i”v’

the purpose of disbursement. The “ba11a._§*1ce ai11o’uri’t sVh.a*1.}&

deposited by the appe11ant~Co_1f’poratior: withifi of–.

four weeks from toady o__n reeeip§,__o:f~c_o’py of..th«i«S:j11d§i’:1ent.

in ierms of the above, tfiel’app.<;.a1.x_1sbbdisposed of. No

order as to eosts'_a._V

Sd/–»
JUDGE

gab*