The Managing Director vs Rudrappa on 18 December, 2009

MFA 2693 .08

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE ism DAY or DEcEMBER,.«2_o_o9'_ " 

BEFORE V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTI:Cfi   I L
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST pAiwP1~3iA1_.p iivoi26§;s',?2eea'l   I'
Between: I   I I   

1. The Managing Directoif,' it 
Cental Office, Gokul Roaedl', Hublig T  '

2. The Self Insurance Fundw,w-NWKRTC, I "
Central Office, Gok-ul road, H.'uD1i§"7j-. I' h it
Both appellants  p1'*esen'tly._represeiited by
The chief Law Qffi»C€i:, l\TWK.RTC,..C'entra1 Office,
Hubli 580       
 _       _ _ APPELLANTs
[By Sri. Ravi V. 'Hese-mani','e~Advq)

And:

 ~ .Rudra»pipa, S] o Yalllappaifanamatti,
 Age4'i'*yea1"s-. occ: SBI Bank Employee,

/'o_R~oVn, ..r:lisf..*(3rad_ag.

RESPONDENT

 is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

 Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside/quash the judgment

fijv»-'«._a11d awa"rdV__fiated 5.6.07 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) and

 'Ar1d1.vse.MAcT at Ron in MVC No.23/2006 in the interest of
 jiistilrge and equity.

i This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court

ieleililxirered the following:



MFA 2693.08

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants

sum of Rs.19,592/– is deposited before the Clairrisr’I’ri-biunial

10/07/2008 in Execution Petition Ng;i>s,r2oo’f7. ‘4the1’e:fore;,A V

submits that the requirement of diep_’osi,t

dispensed with.

2. A memo dated’*l_6/ filed the counsel
for the appellants on 18/

3. imi-lg submissioinii and in the light of

deposit rnade.pbeforefithe”*E’lxecuti’rigV–Court, office objections is
over–ruled_. As thei’nfiatterVi’liles”in a short compass, the case is

taken for adrnission.’ . ‘

The grievance of the appellants–Corporation is

agaiiist’ of compensation awarded by the Claims

Tribunal for personal injuries suffered by the claimant»

re,spondent”herein. The claimant was travelling in the KSRTC

i'”Fl’1e bus turtled resulting in injuries to left hand and

._i”fraci:ure in the 431 and 5″? finger of the left hand. Considering

MFA 2693.08

the evidence on record, the Tribunal after holding that the

actionable negligence on the part of the driver of

bus was proved, has awarded compensation inf””a–«

Rs.31,600/- along with 6% interest. The W

that the injured was working as a rriesse-ngeriiin ithe’-

drawing salary of Rs.4,lO-4/~« .

5. Having due regard to”*thie.eividencei on record, the
Tribunal has awarded corni1i>ensa’tioi:1:as ifolilowistg

1. Towards paiir1t.’3an’d:_:a_gony 11] H. 15,000 /

2. ‘ 2 , 000/ –

3. i’l”ogWa.rdsi 3,500 / —

4. Touiardsv.travelling’eiliarges 2,000/-
tl:oiwards.ifood.._and nutritious 5,000 / –

‘ “6. Loss ‘income during the
‘ pe’riuodVt~reatment 4,100[–

total 31160O{ —

MFA 2693.08

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the
amount awarded is on the higher side particularly because”the

Doctor is not examined.

7. I have carefully considered_the ”

with reference to the reasons assigi<1ed;"an*d th_e"~eViden"ce

record.

8. I do not find any the urged
by the learned counsel jhe claimant has
produced dischargecard and EXs.P–3 and 4.
He has He was an
inpatien1’_il”ronr/2004 in KIMS hospital.
Keeping riinipnd of treatment taken and the

fractur;al–vinjuriessuffered, though, the claimant has not chosen

to exarnine’ find that the materials on record fully

ijtistifyu compensation in a sum of Rs.31,600/3» in

all)li3y44__the.–Trih.unal. It cannot be said that the compensation

i”-‘««___a~warded isiexcessive and unreasonable calling for interference

‘by th_is_f,Court.

‘ ~ 3
, 4,:

kmv

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

MFA 2693.08