High Court Karnataka High Court

Sakarday Iqbal Hassan vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 4 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sakarday Iqbal Hassan vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 4 November, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
-' v     ..... .. «

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT' BANGAIAEJRE
DATED THIS THE Mm {JAY OF HQVELEEER, 

BEFORE

Tm HOWELE 1~.m...IUs'r.t<:E  

 '

 YIQBAL   '
AG-E}:§ABOU'I'43YEA.R3.
s,-os.a.mn.nA:-zmsm

RIAT NQE-58 mar meek.   
«rm cmss,cHAmRA1?;£"r,   *
macmmnx-as T   

mam: HU8:Im;t:R'r 01? am; causss, ammzn, mar,
 AREA, mxmmas, (s<.:e:mo.2),
 ALLOWING THE cum rsrmozst FOR
  caxtpsnaanon Arm szzme Emmxcmrtrrr or
   camsnaanan.

M.F'.A. N0.112S6/2903     ~ 



THE APPEAL COBEIIVFG 013' FOR FINAL HEARING
TI-IE DAY, THE CGIIRT DELIVERED TH FC)LL€)WmG:-

 !

This appeal E by the claimant. for  _

of campensaiion awarded by T:   -

2. For the sale: of Qanvfiitaifizgié,  

referred to as they are refarre§l"%to in i:h§:' 'V

befarc the '1'ri'bunal.v  

3. Thu.   2 

On      claimazzt was
%    KS1-'€'I'C bus bearing
  from Bangalore to

 

B%ot§ i'91_'   of his wifa, the driver of the

 V,   chzave  at Bcvmr Police limits 2'IH-«1?

  manner and sawed accident.

as   claimaxlt sustained injurim. Hence, he

   petition ha-fore MACT, Banaakam seeking

   of Rs.5,0G,0{){)/-. The Tribunal

{Q3/..



awardcd him a commasaticsn of Rs.1,'3"?,1&€3;'-- with

interest ax '?% p.a..
4 As there 3 no dispute fiding
o-ccurrcrme of accident, negligence and lialzsilitjgr.

KSRTC, the anly paint that [I 

consideraxian in the fix} is:   

"whcthcr the cempéitsafioh   ._

by the Tribunal is  
dow it call for  '  " V'

5 Amer  315% counsel

   the judmcnt
and  of thé I am of the View that the

comgxangafiimvv  the 'I'rihuna1 is mt just and

  the lewer am and hence it is

 

  cad.

3 The claimant has sustained ptmctmwed

4'    on the Icfl; 1%. X-ray shcws ccrmpoumi fractun:

 tibia and fibula. The injurim sustained by the



claimant are evident from the wmmd ecrtificate Ex.P---

4, discharge: summary Ex.P»7, certificate issuciiby

Maliya I-Iosptial E-x.P-8, mm issued 

Hospital EX.P*-'I2, X-trays Exs.P-18   .. 

oral ev:dcn' at of the cmimam 

doctor Whfl treatad the     there
is disability of '? .595 its  {iI1¢  "   _
7. Conaide1iIv1g--Vt1w --. _   'bf irijuries,

Rs.2e,ooo;g    towards 'pain

and  and it in desmvacd ta
be enhanced   km.1o,ooo/- and I award

   '§,,13,090I- awarded by the Triburlal
  V.  e::xpm1s&' is based an the medical

  by the claimant and there is ma scope

4    under this head.

%*



9. The claimant was treated as inpatient cm

two different cc-casiem from 26.18.2002.----. tc

31.19.2902

in Maltya Hoapim, Bangakare R

that period he was operated for the K

for removal of implants. 3113.; T

traamlent, m.5,eoo;- me

towards ‘incidental ‘suuch
nouzishmnnt and cm lawm-

side and it is by aaether

Rs.1G,D09[.–.~. 3 under this

._ ‘€.=lt:s1n:1_ ‘ s to be werk1ng’ in Saudi

Arabia of 1500 R1’yal per month

currency. 311: he has not

aame by producing relevant

in the appeal, the claimant accept

pmapart along with an application far

4′ “ii of addifional document has not produced

‘ other dc-cuments. Therefore, tha income assamsed

by the Tribunal at %.3,0fl0/~ gun. is just and proper.
The nature sf injuries sumcst that he must have yucca

under mat and treanmmt fer a period of 4-

and therefazre a sum :31’ Rs.12.000[-

towards ‘less of inaamc . ‘

agam 2-.w9,0oo/~ awa;aedbyih¢Tri}§u::sri§ 7

1 1. Considering t11c”a’1Vi:a;:i%.§€1.’ivvf§’:)y the
doctor and an unhfippiness
the claimant life, it is just
and towards

‘I036 ‘W it as agams’ t

m1o,oeQ}- Tribunal.

“ii is aged about 38 yeam at the

LtiiaV:1§:~V and the raultiplicr appficable to his

His inccsme is assessed at Rs.3,0i.)0/-

the doctor W119 treated the claimant has

‘ max mm is disability cf 7.5% to: the limb. The

. disflty &PF1ea.2:s to be the: dmah’ ility stated to

%.

the whole body and it is considerad aa against 4%

asscmd by the ‘I’rib1n1a1.TI1arefoz~e, the: ‘£933 of

income’ vmrka cut ta 8.1.40, 6&0] -» (30% X

12 x 15} and it is awarded as ‘A

awarded by the Tribunal.

13. Thus, the cxaikjmay %jLjL~1t .§r1tit1 §4:{‘:~–;V’fdr”:the A %

following cempensa§’ex;:»

a.) Pain and sufi’e1’ings . =~.-VRs.30,0G0

b) AF-.%.1,13,0<}€)

c) R3.15,0G0

d) Lm offinoajmc 1;. V
” ~ Ra.12,(I!I{)O
c} ” – Rs.15,C!00

t) Lass uftzxture ~ $40,590

– Rs.2,25,5{}€}

nu»-..u.-up.–.—.–…-\..».p..«—nu.

– ‘V14; the appeal is allcrwed in part.

Ti:ie’__jV\1fié’*«VB §ii§-..;ggd awam was by the Tribunal in

_ the wtent. stated herein above. The

s is enfitisad for a total compexmatian af

Ef}§; 25,G!0{- as agaimt Rs.1,77,16OI- awarded by

‘ ” Trflauual with Exzterest at 6% 13.8.. on tha enhanced

compensaticm of Rs.48,340i- from the date of claim

petititm till the date at maliaation.

15. The KSRTC. is ditwwd to dc 1;)§>’i7£:ifi:.: j!i’ix3V

enhanced eompcmafwn amount

interest within me momma £216′ data

a. capy of this judment.

16. Out of the of V’

the amaunt with ‘ixgfgigst i# diifc1wed to
be mm’ ted in fixed 3 ;%;g::r claimant in
any Omcc
fer a ‘ ‘Rcmmmng’ amount with

pmportiofmq:e.v ordered to be relmed in

V. immediatcly after the dcpmit.

Sdfi
Ridge