' V' Viru.d§1n;a.gar.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2") DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRS. -JUSTICE MANJULA c1<:13L1}ij'1{I"' ~
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENL}G-DPALA
MFA. No.27¢:?Z/f?,O05"{Mj_/j . A
MFA. No.I396:4/
IN MFA. No.2 7457' /2005 [M_\_n _
BETWEEN
Chandramam 1.\I.V'§_\vI1 *
{By S; Reddy, Advocate}
... APPELLANT
l\.'J
AND:
Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation. K. H. Road
Shanthinagar
_ BangaI0re--560 027, Representeé by its
Managing Director » 5 * , " _
[Owner of Bus KA~25/F368] «_R-ES§'OND_E'.VNT'
[337 Sri. D. Vijaé/W Kumar, Advocate] " 5%
Tms MFA ES FILED U/S._V1"E3(1) OE I\/EV A.C'fa__AGAiNS'F '
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7'/~1__1/05-1PA;3sED IN
MVC No.1105/1992 ON THE _E1I;E_ DE THEwA_DDL. CIVIL
JUDGE {SR.DN.] TE_JMKUR,VI1'ARTLY 'ALLOWENG
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR C0.MI?E_NSATEON AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENS1¥ITON._W1fiTH_1.INTEREST AT
12% P.A. 1- «V "
EN. NI--FA.=: No{.3..Q64/2005 (MW
BETWEEN
North West' i{afi11ata?~:a Road
Transport Corpotiatidiaé _ -- [
Ce ntra] Office, 'G_0k1ViiA. .R'0a_d';--. ,. 'igbii
By its Managing DAire'€f(:1j _ * ' APPELLANT
[By ST1." D, Vijxay. Acivocate]
V' . . . . . ..
Cha,11(iram.ani ' M
TAged"Ab'oa.;t 3"<3..yeg,rs
SL1 S.«M.a_h-firjdra Kumar _
R/' # 6643', Ailambatti Mahelidram
C0rn'pou=nd ,' Virudhnagar
_ . ._ ' ' ._.Kan1ar3;j District
_Tar,'.1j] Nadu. RESPONDENT
‘ S. K. Venkata Reddy. Advocate]
TEES MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAENST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7/1./05 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1lO5/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AMACT, TUMKUR. AVVARQC)–ENG
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,25,096/– WITH INTEREST..ATu 6%
RA. Pd\lD DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HE.i§i3.1N’–ej’To..
DEPOSIT THE SAME.
THESE MFAS COMING ON FOR HEA;2.1~1%§.: ‘f’i*HIS DAY; ” .
MANJULA CHELLUR, J., DELWERED”‘1″i–1E FoL1,ovm\:o:
JUDGMENICC
Heard the learned oounjnsels AV’appearing’:_;for. “the C’ A
appellants and the I’€S_p0nd€I).tSV:i-1″‘i~.bVC\.t:h the ‘appeals. We
have gone through the reoord-so_f_ lo’vf_erV.C»ot1rt.
2. MFA, N91396:;/2§oQ.§ the NWKRTC
seekingvdvreduotifon :¢o::lp;%_nsat:.oi¥L awarded by the Tribunal
on the ground _j:inj:u’red-respondent/claimant also
contributed the n.eglig;en’oe with regard to the accident that
“V”«–.oCcu.rreC;–.e,Aa11d a1s”o””o”n’V the ground that the quantum of
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
MFA1″,-No.2747/2005 is filed by the claimant
C’-»r:oz1ten”d.ing that the quantum of compensation awarded by
V”:Cti1e»’l’r_ibunal is on the lower side and it has to be enhanced.
3. The occurrence of accident on 1.05.92 on NH~4
involving the KSRTC bus and the injured who __._was
proceeding on his Hero Honda bike is not in
question is whether the injured also ~
negligence for the occurrence of the _ac.ci_der1t_§ ‘V’O’r1′::4Q:sf{1:Sa1VV05:
the records it is seen that one MalliliarjuiiTwasthe”di*i;.§’e–r’.o»f_:
the KSRTC bus who died subs’e.guerit:v.to ihef;i¢.:¢;d_eVm.¥ on
8.12.1992. Therefore, he was n_ot*.e_xan1ir1ed.~–iiowever, the
fact remains the bus _Ap’.roc;eeVdi1ag» trotn Bangalore to
Haveri and definitely the~.ce’nd’u.c’:orl be one of the
inmates of the;-.,bL1sC’ ,1i1é.a;ci&1e1_1€-.:o¢’c%lri–ed in the rnid~night
at ¢’l.”lE::1′.l’g(“L’ is filed by the police
against bus. If the driver of the
KSR’lfCV bus 4lagai11s§.,wij.9rq.– eharge sheet is filed could not be
‘xV”‘v.eXal::ni’r1edi as he xdie’d”or1 8.12.1992, the Corporation could
_h’av_e” ‘exvarriined the conductor who was in the bus at the time
9
of.’ the accid.ent to say how the injured also contributed
r__11eg’1i.gerice for the occurrence of the accident. Apparently, no
evidence is forthcoming. On the other hand. the
I
evidence of the injured would indicate he was not over»
taking any lorry” coming in the opposite direction at n::’m¢
of the accident. Therefore, the defence set
Corporation that while over taking the lor1fy—-»’:..lr7i§:~eVaccident”
occurred has to be rejected. Hence,:-.the
Tribunal that the accident occurred oiiljf”on oftagtlie
rash and negligent driving of theIl_river of bus is
justified.
4. Then “Corning t-ofthe:c1Liai1tt1.Ii1tvofeornpensation, the
injured at its 1 /3″‘ of
the shafti…_ of mandible. Apart
from these he sustained other 10
injures grazed abrasion and other
abrasiovns. Imri’1ediat:eiy: after the accident, he took treatment
‘jfo;-. .jatt–..VTumkur hospital, then he was shifted to
was in~patient for 1 day. From there he
Was””‘–shift.edv to St. John’s hospital and Victoria Hospital at
th ._mE3a,n”gaio1*e. He also took treatment at JEPMER (Jawaharlai
“ins’titute of Post Graduate Medical Education Research)
Hospital at Pondicherry. The evidence of the doctors and the
medical records would indicate the fractures had
reduced by open surgery and on account of the,?fracti_ire__”.of__ _
the right femur, he developed osteornyelites”ariEj~..irifec’t.iorrif
with which he has to Suffer throughout if
his evidence has indicated how thisA.v_ost.eomy’ei;ite’s coguid
cause persistent inconvenience arid:9iiardshipjtotithe}patient.
With ah the treatment;’:«– the suffered
disabilities iike shortenpingipoefihthe: persistent
infection o:steCinive1.ite:s”:–xan.d.T:fa1so difficulty in
chewing while r
The ‘taking into account aii these
facts awarded towards injury, pain and
suffeijingiiapart other amounts under un~»1iquidated and
damages. The main grievance of the injured
fappfeiiantidseernfsvto be not awarding any amount towards loss
of future”i1ic:onie. On perusal of the records, we note that
Tthesppetitioner was on leave for almost 579 days. This is
spoken. to by accounts officer from HMT who is examined as
P.W.2 where the appellant was working. Though there is
evidence to show that he was on leave for 579 days
pay, there is nothing on record to show that_.§lthereQ- _
medical advice for applying leave for long l'()l:n’-they: it
other hand, there is also evidencelaon recordersto..lshov=i”V-tthatl.l
during his treatment period, hisytrife loominittefly
to depression” as he met apccide-nit: serious
injuries. Apparently, heavasVtliepilaeensedvvinulthe said
case. The fact rernains medically to
take this long leave ‘ilealye was utilised for
some other remains he was out
of also note that except
Rs.1O,O(llO/Vl~= loss of amenities, no other
amount is a:Warded”V’ine’luld’ing permanent disability. Having
the faet””‘ti1.at loss of pay being assessed at
any proper evidence, we are of the
opinion thefsaid amount could be considered as amount
lx__towaro~s permanent disability and loss of amenities of life.
‘~:”So far as other heads of compensation, having regard to the
fact that the accident being of the year 1992, we are qf the
opinion the quantum of compensation awarded_.vby-«._ethe
Tribunai is just and proper. Therefore, we are 0f-§i.he4i7p1i1–1i:ef;.._ ‘ .
there is no need to interfere with thegwpard of ‘the– ‘
Accordingly, both the appeals
in deposit shaii be sent to the T1i}§i1.nal eon.ee1’ne’d.