IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: 1st day of December, 2009
Present
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. GOPALA Gowns} 'V .
HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V.NAGA_RA7.{'1'_iNA--._: .
M.F.A No. 3078/2eo4fM}g"«.rr '1 "
BETWEEN *
Sri.RAMAPPA,
S/QSRLVENKATAPPA,
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC:NIL, V
R/O.GUDIPALLI, PATAPALYA POST; _ .,
BAGEPALLITALUK, ~
KOLAR DISTRICT. -- _ : '"--fg.__.jAPPELLANT
(By Smt. SUNI'1'HV}"3.H.=:_ADV.,»'F'OR"' .. _
Sri. SURESH E;AT"UR,= A1:>\__z.}1j-- . A
THE MANAGING .DIREdCTCV)'I'R,"
K H ROAD, sHAN'1H_INAGAR-
BANGAL0312E--'560 027.. _____ H _ RESPONDENT
{By SHARIF, ADV.)
-000-
M._F;iA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against
_ _vV"the.rgJudsgmeni: 81 Award dated 5/ 12/2003 passed by the MACT,
'Bafxg._slQre"':City, in M.V.C.No.3999/2001.
T1115 M.F.A coming on for hearing before the Court this day,
A apex:-hearing, Nagarathna, J delivered the fo110w1'ng:»--
&<
2
JUDGMENT
The correctness of the judgment and award dated 5-12-2003
passed by the MACE’, Bangalore City, in MVC No.3999/ is
called in question by the injured claimant in this appeal. “.2 ”
2. The facts that are no longer in dispute V’
2001 at about 12-30 p.m the claimant sustained road 22
traffic accident involving KSRTC bus in
respect of the said injuries, he filed-..the Aclaini seeking’-2
compensation under various,headsp.d….The same Was..Acon§tested by
the respondent. On the basis-of_tlie. on record, the
Tribunal assessed comvpens-ation:”: of ~ and after
deducting awarded a sum of
Rs.41,600/- annum from the date of claim
petition til].realisa’tion.’ ..l3eingla.ggrieved by the same the claimant
hals”preferred.”this appeal} “”” ” if
the learned counsel for the appellant and
oi,.,,.,.«the learned for the respondent Corporation and perused
.. the’ material on record.
4,_ lflfhe following points would arise for our consideration in
2 h 2′ appeal: –
i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50%
of the compensation towards contributory negligence
of the claimant?
ii) Whether the appellant is entitled
compensation?
5. From the material on record it.Vist.selenl’that
claimant was getting down from he.__sustainé.§1″‘injnries,l”
which aspect of the matter is the… rcisponcient
Corporation. However, the Driver of the bus
did not have knowledge of the was a passenger
and in the abS€IjiCE’.§LQl” to stop the bus.
since he didvynot would be getting down.
Be that as that the accident occurred on
account of user l V
6. into’ consideration the fact that the claimant was
alightirig.,eA.the.”bus, we are of the View that the driver and
conductor._VyofvV’th’ev».hus”Vhave to be cautious in letting him to get
fro1h*the:hus: particularly when the Conductor is responsible
the safety and security of the passengers. Further,
“not pleading nor evidence on the part of the respondent
vlcorporation to justify the fact that there was cpntributory
9%
aw’
negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore, we are of the
View that the Tribunal was not justified in apponioningfi”‘50%
towards the contributory negligence on the part
claimant. Hence, Point (1) is answered in favour of ”
7. As far as enhancement of compensation;is-:conc.erned, it
is seen from the records that the appellant
fracture of both bones of right foreigann and—-rew_”asllltreated by V
open reduction and internal fixationgwithle;:te’rnal fii<ato1""'for radius
and rush nail for the rightlfl Krishna
examined in the matterglhas :72"/0 disability of
right upper limb. hyasmrightly assessed the
whole body disability:'at:'1i15%;-::Hoyvev'er3…vi;hi1e calculating the loss
of earning capacity, taken the monthly income at
Rs.1800/– only; which side. Considering the fact
thatthe accjidverit «$3001, a sum of Rs.3,000/ — per month
shall be the nlotio–niai.yincome of the claimant. In respect of 25%
disabilityljlbyl multiplier 8, the future loss of earning
Vviyclalpacity is as:se'ss';ed at Rs.72,000/– instead of Rs.-43,200/–
by th'e:'l'ribunal. Similarly, the compensation on other
,4
«.hea_'c1s arealso enhanced as under:–
Pain and Suffering Rs.25,000
Loss of amenities 30,000
Medical expenses 8:
Incidental charges 15,000 ‘
Loss of income during treatment ‘
Loss of future earning capacity -1’ _
Total: 1,:-57’*,000~.
The enhanced compensation shall carrggr interest at 06% .anjnurn’= 0
from the date of petition till realisation_.u’f.__
8. The respondent Corporationf.sshaIl;de«posit the enhanced
compensation with interest of flourlweekts from the
date of receipt of_ _o1’~.t4hisi the same shall be
released to i’n~terms of the Award of the
Tribunal.
9. For theaafovresaiid’relasons, the appeal is partly allowed in
the above iierrns.
sd/-
JUDGE .
Sd/~
JUDGE
0. *