High Court Karnataka High Court

K L Ashoka vs The Managing Director on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K L Ashoka vs The Managing Director on 19 November, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT 012' KARNA'i'AI{A
BA;'~5(}AL()RE      %

mrrm THIS THE 19"" my 0;? Noxsf1::$;1B§§;R M Q 

ml; H()N'BLI~;I MR. .1UsT;c:E 

MISCELLANEOIES FIR§;i'§_?;£E$L--fiG;:97.S3 or goes

BETVVEEN:
Sri.K.I._z.AsE3d}:a_3»VI" __ __ -.
SE0 K.Li33g'egoi§g*da, ''  __  
Aged a%is:3ut.:2f§.yea-rs?    :
Rfat .Ka1¢§:a§i'a3ii;;.Yi;€l.ag:g ' "
Kcz§:hathiA Héibii,   .
Maindya'Tal13k':&A})istri§i'i;;--. ' ' ...APPEI..LANT

(By Sf£'.$¢§va:§.g§Sw_fia'._a'a2%i'..§int.Mfienuica Swaroep, Advsf}

   ..... 

” Efirector,
._ “-T’_Qw’11e’r=€Lhief Custodian of
‘ _ ihtcmai “1ii_’!§.i.iI’ai3i}€ Fund,
“aw;:er ;;I’KSRTC Bus Ne.K.A 28fF 493,

Saiiga Bhavan, K.H.Doub}e Read?

” = ».$ha1éthinagara,
* ;B?angai§:::«re=56{)G2?. …RESP’ONI)ENT

(By Smt.Swt:tha Anand, Adv.)

$33?

This M.F.A. is filed under Section £730) of MV Act
against 111% judgment and award dated 7.6.06 passed in MVC

Ne-65Q€fi§ an the fiie: iiffilfi Pr}. fist. Judge, MAC?-I:.T”M»az1d§ra§
pamy aiiewing the claim petition fer compeizsatimx.
etzhanaement cf compensation with 12% interestg. f , ” .

This MRA. ccsming on f{3s*”i*icaring7_” :.

deiixsered the f011owing:-

JUD

ms Ema; is M1316 not saagfied with the

award passeégbjg MACT, Mandy-‘a in
MVC N;3′;6’5_Q;’¥f%%§-dafe§iV–?&fé.,Q6.;’

giiéimant? on 8.7.02 arezmd 9.45 am.

when hLé~V\f£1,s. KSRTC has bearing N0.KA BSEF

“Swaflriiésaiidra at Mandya since the driver of the bus

V i%V1ue;’T~§£-;§1icIe sudéczziy in a rash and negligent manner, 32%

A”‘««feiIv.__”<i;,x,§f'1iT and szismined fracmre. Accaréingiy, ciaéming

AA ; CDIfi1J;E!}S3tiC}I! Bf Rs.l,5{},0O0;'- the claim petition was filed.

V' be same was resisted by the respondent. Based on the

pkzadingsg the Tribunal has framed three issues. fez"

cansideration. 'While hisidéng that the accident was due to the

.

negligence on the part of the driver af flue KCSRTC bus in
question, havirxg regard in the natuyc {if injuries-s_ufi’creé the
Trébzzna} has awarded 21 tetai compensation (sf with
6% interest p,a. The same has bwn

seeking enhancement.

3- Heard.

4, Having ‘ite of injuries sustained

aupthcz’ be awarded towards pain and

stiff:-‘.:u1″‘i3.1<gMfs._ VA Vraeagégt: amount is awarded towards medical

V A'A:;..v_s__1;;:i1, anathcr Rs.5,000f- wouid be awarded an

' ~ Towards loss of earning he has been awarded on}?

._ A He: would be entitled if"? armtther Rs.5,0%f- on that

On the head of less of amenities he has not been

V' * . _ tawardcd. Having regard to the nature of injury namchr fracture

0f 2", 3"' and 43' metatarsal bone of the lefi leg ané having
rcgard to his age, he weuid be awarded Rs.lO_,00@f- towards

has (sf amenities. Thus, in 3}}, the claimant wcauld be entitied

flax

f.e:r2" eahanced eemgmnsatien of Rs.25.{}{}0z"- over and above whai
has aiready been awarded, with 6% interesi from date :31'
pstiticm ti}! éepcosit. The Insurer shail payfizeg.'
within three months fmm the date sf reosipi, _A

order.

5, Accordingffig §»3:Vpart’,
sd/–

» _ . Judge