IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 _
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPA1'i1:\I:'Av
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI,,VNg.9S02'/SGDGVVV _
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD K.'
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE V
GOKUL ROAD L _ _
HUBLI '
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTQR'v--.A
(By Sri.: D vIJAYAI«i'III§§A'R., Anvil "
AND:
SMT. PARVATEWWA " I A
W/O MALLAPPA BENAKA'I'TI
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC~:.._COOLI WORK
R/'O.ASHIRAS,A.NGAI ----
SAVADATTI 'IALUK._
BELGAUM S.D;ST*R'IOT'
' ° =.,{By Sré} KAIQWAD, ADV. FOR C/R)
. . . APPELLANT
... RESPONDENT
MFA FILED U/S I73 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
J
‘3
~7.?:;;rID»GMENTI.,’AND AWARD DATED 5/5/2006 PASSED IN MVC
I , -.NO.;264’I7—,I_04 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE {SD} 85
ADDI;-NIAOT, BELGAUM, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,62,000/– WIT}-I INTEREST @ 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING T1_d~:5s.”Ii3}é;\’>f;–
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H _
JUDGMENT”;
The appellant-Corporation is calling question the
dated 05.05.2006 passed in MVC N0-v;.:.2:647/100%. ‘=Thell’act”relating T
to the accident having occurred and the injuries
suffered by the claimant is not seridu-51;;
2. The contention__. the present appeal
by the appellant.;Cor:porafio«nl”is«. the claimant herself was
negligent as she the center of the road and with
regard to thebquanltulm. o1°dc’orn’peinsation awarded.
3_{p_’The__:lea_rned”Counsel for the appellant while assailing the
awarddlw-ould’contend that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant
Vvpcompensation.’lit lisalso contented that even on the question with
regard to negligence, the Tribunal has erred in the matter.
regard “to the quantum of compensation, it is contented that
_pe3_*ce;j.tage of disability as reckoned by the Tribunal is on the
h ‘ iiilgher side and so also the miiléiplier reckoned. The compensation
‘”0
towards ‘pain and suffering’ as well as towards ‘loss of amenities
and enjoyment of life’ ought not have been granted in the manner
in which it has been done.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent howey’er,V’soi.1gl1t it
to justify the award. it is contended thatinsofar
the Tribunal has noticed the eviden.cfe’i~.tende’1’ed byiit.he’i..docVto’r ands’
in fact the disability reckoned “by ison vtheyliower side.
It is contended that considerirrghthe the amount
awarded towards ‘pain’ and of amenities’ is
also contend that in fact
some more towards loss during
treatment :V’periodi.VViVanfd”towards conveyance, food and
nourishment. all these aspects, the learned
Counsel. «woui~d conitenidv that the award in any event does not call
for interfere_nce.. , p ‘ ‘ ,.,.
of what has been contended and on perusal of
award” passed by the Tribunal, it would indicate that the
Tribunallfhad framed issue No.1 with regard to the negligence.
considering this aspect, the Tribunal has referred to the
l
“-
by the doctor namely, that she had suffered fracture of clavicle
right side, fracture of right humerus with radial nerve palsy,
fracture of right ilium, fracture of right femur. The doctor hasalso
referred in detail with regard to the manner of treatmentii
to the claimant with respect to the said injuries. Theflfolliovvi
the said treatment was also referred to indetail and iregzardr
the doctor has stated with regard to
would be faced by the claimant. As keeping .all”vth”ese’asipectsi”
in view, the doctor has stated theggi-plivsicalgg disability 90% in
relation to the right upper lirnb and relation to right lower
limb. In the cross~e:{{arnina:tion; itliei stated that the
manner of clivsabiilitfiigas based on the guidelines
provided in ‘ALMICO’ th’e~._:Go.vernment of India guidelines for
the purpose of asisesism,e.ntfof disability. Keeping in view the said
e’vidcnce”itenderred A. by i5W2″”and in the background of the evidence
tende_redii_c:laimant, the Tribunal has arrived at the
i Vi”‘i….conclusi:,)”ni that the instant case, the disability could be
recikoned at’Er0’:3’o.
‘if’ iiiWhen the Tribunal has referred to the evidence on record
i” has thereafter arrived at such a finding of fact, there is no
l
p
room for this Court to interfere with regard to the said finding.
Thereafter, the Tribunal has considered the avocation.t:o«f_i”the
claimant and has come to the conclusion that the inc_oinei’l;+ei ~
taken at Rs.60/– per day and in this context has”‘cal’ci1late’dt the’
compensation. Though it is contended on l’g’eh.alfi’of_i the
that the multiplier reckoned by thewffgribulrl-all’ is neat’appropriatea”
considering that the Tribunal had taken .note.’of.i_the age of the
Claimant and has thereafter the iaplpropriaite multiplier. even
the said aspect of the matter doesriot call folr.inteV1’ference.
8. With regard._’V “towards ‘pain and
suffering’, con_.siderin_g the icilaimantvlwas fairly aged and had
suffered injuries’« the amount awarded towards
‘pain and sufferiiigiis alsoll Considering the fact that
in” any evet1}1tl,lith~e arnountvitowards loss during treatment period has
not._ awarded-.and the marginal higher grant could be
compensated li”towar’d.s”V..the head which has not been granted.
VVit’l’herefore;””witl’i’regard to the said compensation awarded, the
f.;1ppeJ,iam, cannot have any grievance.
l
9. The only error which I notice is the amount which has
been awarded towards ‘loss of amenities, comfort,
enjoyment of life’. Though the Tribunal has adVerted__Atoi..this–‘
of the matter, considering the fact that ii”
considered and a fair amount has been awar_de.d oi1.’thei”said:i’iheal:i;
award towards ‘loss of amenities’ requires be rediiele.:d<byVVVa..3surn–.ti'
of Rs.20,000/~. Therefore, after the slaid_:arnount"o.il°:Rs.2:Ca,OOO/– is
reduced, the claimant be corr1El3ensation of
Rs.2,42,000/« as against the by the
Tribunal. To the modified. In all
other aspects the it i
In terms stand disposed of. No
order as to cois*ts.l « V it it
ttttt JUDGE
gab A