4-
IE' TIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY 01:' JUNE, 2oo9xS
PRESENT
THE §~i0N'BLE MR.JUS'I'iCE D v SI5iYL§;N131§A"K'§i1yf.A'R ' V
AND .
ma H()N'BLE MR.JUSTICE xi' 1';}{ESi{.:%\Vfi\l§AIv?§AYA:N§V I
MFA M16808 oFS2S€ 3a3tMv;S
B EEN _
2. MAILAWWA W/Q VY1AAV1\«i)§miPi5.5}fIy$:F;DAR
SINCE DE;;:1=;ASED i2ULYffREP BY HER
LEG-AL' RS912 ES 13:NTA1fiVES
IA; HANL¥,1'9*iAN1"'--~
"$.fO.vYANIANA_PPA MADAR
. S AGED471 Y-EARS, occ: 0003.13
R/A KARIKATTI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI
f DISTRICT: BELGAUM
VV.i:Afl'uVu'>'.V"'G(h|'...V-'-jV?."A"V.~£l S/O YAMANAPPA MADAR
S % ' ' SJAGED 22 YEARS, occ: COOLIE
S R'/A KARIKATTI, TALUK:SAUNDA'I'TI
I. DIST: BELGAUM
" APPELLANTS
g\BP:JYLg\NGADI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.,)
£2;
f "TIRE GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC
* CENTRAL OFFICE, BANGALORE
-2-
THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
BELGAUM
(BY SR1 RAVI V. HOSAMANI, ADV.,)
...RESPONSE1§l'f:'._V_
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S_173{'1')"v'O:F.
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT"AN'«D -AWA_i¥fD"" «
DATED 9.9.2003 PASSED IN'. Nf.,\_/C'NG_.753/99--~_l'?S_A
ON THE FILE OF THE »C_IVIL"JUDGEl.{'SR'.DN)g S
MEMBER, ADDL. V_SAUNBATTI;'
DISMISSING THE CLAIM' PETIEWOIVI ;-;-'QR
COMPENSATION.g_
THIS APPEAL T - 'C;(;f3,I»:fIIl1V¥ii} _ 1.ON FOR
HEARING THIS DA¥V,"S}IYLEI\1'3RA: KUMAR .J
DEL1vERSDfi'HE If?()LL{}\2S)H5¥€,}: S
DGMENT
'l°h_iS "tile legal representatives
o£4;c'-me, an elderly lady Who,
in a KSRTC bus bearing
=z:V4t.egiShtr:la9é.£t:§o1'j;;;.Vi'%lo.KA-22/F'-£824 fmm Saundatti to
fell down from the seat when the
of the bus had steered the vehicle in a
Vlrash and negligent manner and Suffered
Serious injuries and W119 had put forth a claim
for Such injuries attributable to the fall She
'$/
,3-
had while travelling in the bus through her
petition under Section 166 of the
Vehicles Act, 1988 in MVC _
before the Additional MACT, §etunc§5'a:ttt,. J
had come to be dismisseitt
Judge of the tribunal.
any cornpensatiotx... to cleitnextxtt it
appears, had of the
years from
proceedings'
the date. iri"(:f5.det1t;'*-Thé""3eg'a1 representatives
have' further.
Aptfieaitis not only for ccmpensation
due to the injuries suffered
B32 fifeeent appellants' mother, but also
AA due. to; the death of the lady as a result: of her
' attributable to the accident While travelling
L the KSRTC bus. t
-4-
3. The learned Judge of the
has rejected the claim mainly for
that the claimant was not able'
that there was an acoidentyleer
suffered by the V' £0
the accident mvolvifie the
4. 3' die» fcedrrtended that
the V. ignoring the%
tribunal on behalf
of clearly demonstrates
"there "wcee____not only an incident of the
' ;"11e't*L1_re but also that the claimant had
and totally ignoring that
evideflce on record and recording a finding to
= contrary is nothing but a perverse finding.
5. Appeal had been adnrdtted and
respondent ~--KSRTC had been put on notice.
-5-
Respcmdent «Corporation is represented “by
counsel.
6. Perused the
Ravi V. Hosamani, leaxnecixr'<;i0;ir1s<§}V_–v_:fcr
respondent ~CorporatioI'3';*~r« .
7. we there was only the but also the 1 injuries due to it.
The vividly described the
of f:I;i’e”-i;n_c_:ident and as against the claim
‘;’fpetjt:ign,:v’«v.. < m1y response on behalf of the
re'épor1.ci§é:3t:¥Corporafion, was one of total
denia::I'A'and nothing elsa.
8. The factum of the claimant having
travelled in the KSRTC bus when the incident
tack place has been made good by examining a
é/T
-6-
co—pazssenger, P.W.3 –Bhimappa Somappa
Karennavar. Unfortunately, the learned
of the tribunal, accepting the submiseioa:’V’oi”‘o
the learned counsel for
Corporation, has ignored sucll evidence, for V’
flimsy reason of the not;
passenger ticket. ‘
the evidenceof to
say the_ expect the
buglllto retain the ticket
for that he may be
sxrjgxirrxonecll as a witness in the case and to give
‘ _’evidlenoe,V ..
l .. V This aspect apart, on behalf of the
While the claimant’s son himself had
deposed and may be, insofar as his evidence
relating to the journey in the bus and What
transpired during the journey, can be said to
be hearsay, the son, who had taken his mother
-7-
to the hospital, must have also been put to
ordeal of moving her from hospital to
and other places and has narrated _ ii
which is to his personal
is nothing elicited duririg.._:¢°z*pss–.exam__ ‘ to”
disbelieve his evidence. V
10. of the
claim V. i Government
Hosiiggitah _ had treated the
patiehtiat she was taken there,
had the nature of injuries and had
a wound certificate and the
” i iiiihaving been advised further
treatment and she being hospitalized for about
it month, have all been tzarrated and the
doctor had clearly indicated that the injuries
were suffered when the claimant was travelling
in a KSRTC. bus due to her fail from the seat
and due to the bump rides she had. The
..s~
evidence of a professional docter as
independent witness could not
disregarded by the tribunal.
11. However, lthe.’
compensation due . é_t1’1e” A the —
claimant, the Axnetheixlf appellants,
is A rejected
the lclaimants had
not hveenlit -‘geod that the death
was injuxies which the
eufiered in the incident
t iabeve, we are of the View that as the
the erighal claimant could not
AAhave.elenght for compeneation due te the death
is an independent cause of action,
mitheugh, perhaps attributable to the injuries
the orignal claimant had suffered during her
life time ‘when she was travelling in the KSRTC
bus and the claim being essentially in the
.9.
nature of 3. claim for personal injuries,
disability and suffering the claimant had,~e’V:§r1e
such a claim petition, the children
have put forth a claim for cougpensati-0-uh to ”
the death of the mother.
12. Though the the
tribunal for % ¢1a;m for
eompensgti’e;}1′ –du§e-W h the injured
is not hot proper also,
fgf this being an
inde’pe;?1dei1t_. “is for the claimants who
eye s;1a5;1.f21?2V.;’1g’.”¢oh1}A).ensau’on for this cause to
prowe-dings and it could not
‘- part of the pmceedings in
%isriV<:.;1-:e'hf.753/ 1999.
13. Be that it may, insofar as the
injuries suffered by the orignal claimant
Srnt.Ma.i.}awwa is cencemed, that being
$/
-10-
personal to her and such amounts fbrj
compensating disability, pain and
may not survive on the death of 3
pursued by legal representaé”L::i’vee.dz
pursued by the legal
special damages filxfke dhefiegiendfiiture
incurred by the time for
true atrnenti, . V’ teeeeponafian
charges’ “- and nothing
nTi’1eVV____injured had survived for 1112
the accident and had become
dd ‘ to the spinal injury. Considerable
expefiditure could have been incurred by the
* -feinily for treatinent of the injured and to keep
her in a reasonable level of comfort and such
other things. With the injured person was
herself: a breadwinner and having been
AV
-;1-
incapacitated, the family would have lost on
that account also.
:5. Though Sri Ravi
learned counsel for the V.’Corporefion
urge that in the absence
and evidence to emount of
expenditure and
therefore, awarded,
we are eftHVe.t.’_we _-cennet ignore the
factum ofethe’ who had been
initially eehosu;)i’t:-fiieedvi for one month and who
due to the injuries and
having for 11;: years and succumbed
fjto t}1″e..i§13fu:*ies ultimately, must have incurred
“:i¢o:eeiderab}e expenditure apart from losing
income during this period. This definitely
A ‘ is an amount which would have been incurred
by the family and therefore, the preseng//__
-12-
appellants, the legal representatives, can
pursue the claim for such damages. ‘ t V A
16. The claimant had
had incurred an
Rs.i0,000/–~
another Rs.2O,000)-4 To
this, we and
attendarit which heads,
we ,e§_5o,ooo/–. The
– is to be paid to
thetluegal t’ep,tfeeerti:atives, present appellants,
’53: Cetfporation. In respect of other claims
u it is for the appellants to Werk
eat femedies independentiy.
17. In the resuit, this appeal is allowed.
The judgment and award under appeal is set
aside and in its place, we orcier that the claim
%/
-13..
petition is allowed to the extent of awardifig
compensation of Rs.50,000/—-. This M
shall carry interest @6% froroflp the ” »
petition til} payment. Tlie
apportioned between %
equal proportion. cieposited by
the Corporation Lwithin six
weeks appellants
are
Sd/~=
JUDGE
so/~
EUDGE
A ‘ bkv