IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. .fg DATED THIS THE Sm DAY 09' FEBRUARY 2O1Q....__ 'V~ PRESENT m_ i _u' THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L..'MANJIqN.AT.;e .1 'V AND T _ A , . THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE:--§:eAv1:§rDVKD--MAR""~f "' Miscellaneous First AR-.Dpea1.ACNCV.A. Cf Between : ' ' Vv Vv . 1. The Managing D_i1"e:CtC_r, K.S.R.T.C., KH ?Dopi1--;':¢ Rfo«adi._ " Bangalore. V' ' 2. The Internal t KSRTC,i_KI-I DOuLE;1e_'R<0Vad,'v*~,v _ -- Bangalore. ' " Appellants (By Sri-. --.Ravi.'uV.._:HCsama-ni.v}\dv.) Arid .: = 1. ' S.h'r_is. A1t,af-.Ahmed1.. S /'0." 'A11aba1'<;s.hV 'Hooli, Age.,32 years;_-- ' -- OCC. DriV~er," _ CR/o. Kata'3Pl0t, =.La;<Vm4inagar, "-Kilanapur. : Gtarunath Hariba Pawar, * "Major, KSRTC Driver, 3., EU R/0. KSRTC Belgaurn, City Depot, Belgaum. Respondents
(By Sri. MB. Naragund, Adv. for Rl, R2 notice _
with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed ,’Sec’;..l?’3′[-1) it
Act against the judgment and award dtd. 22/’Q2/2005 passed in ”
MVC. No. 1963/2000 on the file o;’1″‘lr_1e Civil Judge” (S_1’v..4_VDn._)’ 85
Add}. MACT., Khanapur, awarding CO1’n.perlSati0I1..Oi-‘RTSLE 5;e6;6so/–
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date._of petition till
payment. .
This appeal coming on fo.r..heaririglVlanjunath, J.,
delivered the followirlgta, 1 ‘ ‘
;’:f:i_i. ig ‘
The KSRTCVhasf,preierred~this challenging the legality
and correctness ofthe. award passed by Civil Judge
(Sr. Dn.) 81; Add}. “rim, pr§.hanap.:§ir, dtd. 22/02/2005 in MVC. No.
1963j20cQ§.1d:._ L’*~ vvvvv “-
ii2,_”l’l”ieiiClvaii1ni_ pietition was lodged by the 1st respondent, who
suist_ainedi'”=.injuries” in a road traffic accident occurred on
i The claimant was a pillion rider on a motor cycle on
ifliiaccountiieffthe rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
‘<33.
La}
KSRTC bus near Ganebail on NH»–4A between Khanapur and
Belgaum road, the driver of the bus dashed against the motor
cycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuriets.
He was immediately shifted to KLE Hsopital, Belgaurn hevvvasjv”
as an inpatient for 21 days. He sustained the foll_ovvin–g
right fronto parietal regior, fracture of tibia; leftiflleg i’r_aotAur.eGIr”
clavicle and other injuries. He was agedr.aboutfIL i’ye’ars.i
According to him he was at and he had
secured a job in Gulf Country. 12,000/–, on
account of the id’uetj/ at Gulf Country.
It is this case thation and other injuries
to the body cornjoletely paralysed and he is
depending on ojtheirsiei/erii.i”the nature call. He examined
two Doctorg ,()une Surgeon and other is a Neuro
~~i:/}l{(.3C3€i’1’I:lil1g’ toj”1\leuro Surgeon, he is suffering from 40%
disabjilitj/.j_etoi other parts of the body, as a result of
hjiwiiich he is unahlettoi drive the vehicle and he cannot carry on the
“-«day¢_to«~day acvtivities. According to Orthopedic Surgeon, on
4″accou–ntr.of’j”the injuries sustained to right lower limb and right
i he has sustained disability of 60%. The Tribunal
fig’
‘\
5. So far as the 1″ point is concerned, admittedly the KSRTC
Bus passed completely on his right side and chargesheet is filed
against the driver of KSRTC. The evidence of petitioner in regard
to in the manner in which the accident occurred has_Mn_iotViibe’en”«V
challenged seriously by the appellant. Therefore, i
has to be held against the appellant.
6. So far as the 2nd poinitfisi he has
suffered severe fractureyto right…ti.b_ia and severe
head injury, which was in hospital
for 21 days taken treatment.
Considering the nature sustained by him, this Court
does not see error sum of Rs. 50,000 /- under
the head pain arid Similarly considering the total
igjroducediiibymihirn and total number of days of
of Rs.50,000/– is awarded under the said
also.__can,noti’the stated to be on higher side. For future
expenses a sum of Rs.25,000/– is awarded, which
‘ i*occ–u.rred _to’}us is on lower side, considering the nature of disability
suffering. Therefore, We do not see any reasons to interfere
{§:=’/
he had futureiiéprospects in his life and that he was working as
“–«aj§:m_o’tor~cycleinechanic and his income would not be less than
Rs. 5,000/– per month. In the circumstances, we do
with the compensation awarded under the said head. “The
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.ES0,000/– under the head
amenities in life. Admittedly, the petitioner was
marriage prospects has become bleak. In.Jaddition’.*to”thTat ii
to depend upon others even to pass
evidence has not been challenged bydtheg appellant.
opinion that awarding of Rs.50,000/iiiandger ithci,.ii:l’iiead:i}loss offl _
amenities of life also cannot be ieonisidereds_then_nwhat 1°-Pafifés in
regard to the compensation future loss of
income. The of claimant at
Rs.100/– per day:a:nd_it*aking’ corisidieration the disability at
64% has awarded When we look into the
evidence of P.W.l__ and 3i.and’thie—._natt1re of injuries as disability, we
are of the View that the’disalo’ilitjiri assessed by Tribunal itself is on
lower”side”and:”compensation awarded under the said head cannot
be claimant was aged about 27 years and
».§°U*
not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingiy, appeal is
dismissed.
The amount if any, in deposit is ordered to be _
the Tribunai.
‘
i:”%]]3UDGE
hmn/