. ¢Cé'ntré'L1 '0ffi~<:fie,Gulbarga
'~(By.ESriV.ARégvi ?J; Hosamani, Adv.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY op FEBRUARY
BEFORE '
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. 'EQVEANEA 3
M.F.A N0. 7o54;=f'2oo 8'iMv) -- '-- V
M.F.A No.7o55/2oo8--..qMv)T . A '
BETWEEN: 'V V V.
1. Managirig Director
NWKRTC, Hubii ' '
2. Divisiona1M.9.nag€F.-'V* V
NWKRTC%..Gad;--1g V
3. Seilf I "
NWKRTC, I-Iubliw _ '
All Rcpyesefa itE'
C3:fi'¢:f Law' Officé;-«,. ..N.E«KR'I'C
. . . APPELLANTS
(common)
AANDS
" _ 'Laléippa Venkappa Rathod
7Agé: 23 years, Occ: Cookie
- u R/o.Gajer1dragad
" "Now residing at Gadag, Dist. Gadag
RESPONDENT
(IN MFA NO.7054/2OO8)
%
bx)
Smt. Poonabai
W/0. Neemappa Rathod
Age: 39 years, OCC: Coolie
R/o. Gajendragad
Now R/at Gadag Dist.
I « ._ 'RIj$PQvN'DENT
(1r;"M;FAIINo.70s5i~200_3)
MFA NO7054/2008 IS U/S 173f{_I'MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANDaAW.ARD DATED 20.09.2007
PASSED IN MVC No.9./2000-"ON_;'TH-E FILE 'OF~'THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND 1VIEMEE'R_;»..I ADDL. MACT, RON,
AWARDING THE COM'PENSATION_O_F._RS.30,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RAfIfE'O_F6%_ P*.'A, FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL_'I'TS DE'PO'S'IT, _
MFA 'NO*4.--.70~55.I200j8I FIL'I:iD-«U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE»..I:UDGIwEN"T AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2007
PASSED"-IN_IIIVC'*::No.'S.,/2-000 'ON' THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDCEE (SR.*'.;DN.)«,AND-..._M.E.MSER, ADDL. MACT, RON,
AWARDING 'THE.V"CoMPE'NSATION OF RS.25,000/-- WITH
INTERES,T'AT RA"I°'E_ OF 5% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THESE VAFPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
_ DA-V, 'COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
appCiiaIIt-TrarISport Corporation is Calling in
“”x_AAq.uCjS’;i0n the judgment and award passed in MVC NOS.
08/2006 and 09 /2006 in these two appeals.
A
2. Insofar as the contention relating to
rendered by the Tribunal on the aspect of nfe’g1igeVn’ee0,
same need not be adverted to once -again sin’ce:.’thfisv..C§o£n:t V
while disposing of MFA Nos. 7052’1;(200fs’f’ar{d.
22.02.2010 has already ta»f<e"r1~V..V_theA.V'iew _Vth-atttheeetfinding'V
rendered on that aspect by… "fribunaftwasi justified.
Therefore, in the preserft..appe:aL a'Is.o,..:the said contention
would fail.
3. of compensation in
MVCVvI\Io’.8’/22.0.06;xfit’isseen the Tribunal has awarded
cornpe”nsat_ion of In the said ease, the claimant
had tendered eVidenAc7e’a’s”ffPW2 and the wound certificate was
p_ mV_a13k.e:dA’asvp Ex.I58. said wound certificate would indicate
‘ thvedciiafirlaant had suffered head injury and had taken
‘prG~1onged7p:tfeatrnent. Apart from the said injury, other
simup1eV”‘ipn§uries were also suffered. Hence considering the
‘nattzreffof the fracture to the frontal bone, the compensation
awarded in any event cannot be termed as excessive and as
u “such, the contention with regard to the quantum also fails.
é…
4. In MVC No.9/2006, the claimant examined himself
as PW3 and the claimant had sustained fracture of lefthand,
right paw and also other inguries as indicated
certificate at Ex.P12. Hence even in the instant where
the ciaimant had suffered fracture ‘had
treatment, the compensation of Rs4.’3()i;0_O0/~ awarvded
event cannot be termed as eX’ees*–sive. Ther-eFore,7i»n the said
appeal aiso the contenztéon would’
Accordingly, both. devoid of merit
stand ‘dis’inis”sed.i : fl; ‘*
N’o.__order The E2TT}()LI'{}IZ in deposit before
this ‘Court sihalhlibei transrnitted to the Tribunal.
.econ$¢Ei§~ii.¢ni1y, Misc. civii Nos.100877/2010 and
also stand disposed of as unnecessary.
sd/-
HEDGE
i it ” “gab