High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramaswamy S/O T Rangashetty vs The Divl Controller Ksrtc on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramaswamy S/O T Rangashetty vs The Divl Controller Ksrtc on 29 October, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Malimath
§

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 

DATED THIS Tm: 29'?" DAY OF ocToBB:_:5é',' '2{iD9_.j'  I.

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K;.s'RiEED'HAR'RAQ_ 

THE HONBLE MR. RAVI« IQIALIIVIATH
M.F.A.fI\:’D;_fl343_ {MVI I I

BE’I’WEEN:– F_ . ..

SRIRAMASWA1v’fi_’,
s/0. T.

AGE: 47 3_(EAI§<S*;;_,_–;_ ' .
R/O. NUC}GEfI~i;{;\LLI—'T()Wf~§. '
NUG;:;EI5~1ALL:._–HQD.LI;'.._"«.._§ . .
<:HANNARAYAPAfmA» rA–LD';{.
HAssAN__ D1sTR1.c'i= 9 573,151 .

– V APPELLANT
[BY SR; KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

A’ CONTROLLER,

z’~>

K.s.Rrr;D<:., HASSAN DIVISION.
HASSAN.

IBASHEER HUSSAIN,
.,_ S/O. SALMAD HUSSAIN,
AGE: .49 YEARS.

” KSRTC BUS DRIVER,
CHANNARAYAPATNA DEPOT,

CHANNARAYAPATNA.

I-IASSAN DISTRICT.

REISPONDENTS

(BY SR1 ES. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1}

«fir

Ex.)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 9.7.2004 IN
MVC NO. 317/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE C’I’JljL.__JUDGAE

{SR.DN.} 8: ADI:)L.MAcT, CHANNARAYAPA”I’NA,_l”PARTLY;
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR “co-MPENsATI’o_N

AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT QP7..C_QMPENSATIOl”€.e

This appeal is coming “on f’toAr’; orders”
SREEDHAR RAO. J.. Clelivered thelvfolllowingryQ’;I ” ‘

J U D N T’
Notice to R2 is d~i.speI1sed’xI.Ii:thy:”

2.The appellant I p;=]u.IIone_.{ ‘s.t’IEstained fracture of

patella. The .p€:t:’lfiOI1€l'”‘ is loperatcldandj’iniplants were put.

There-.__is The total body disability is
assesseldgat. 109/c)’.l’.T .–‘l:’l’I*ell4petitioner is working as cloth

meijchant. Ti'”IeV_llliInb disability is assessed at 30% and is an

ROR extracts are produced. In the absence of

iiiconie :’p.rooAlI’,-V.tihe income of the petitioner is assessed at

Rs”-.«.3OQ_£}’ The income loss proportionate to disability is

The occurrence of the accident, negligence of

A’ thefiriver of the offending vehicle and coverage of insurance

I are not in dispute.

3. On remappreciation of the facts evidence, the

petitionei” is entitled for Rs.50,000 for pain and agony and

{:g/,

14)

Rs.30,000/– for loss of amenities and

petitioner was under treatment for aboutf~n1onths’;.

Rs.12,000 is granted tOVVa1’d$,__ Iossfoi?’Zintcornetfiduifing

treatment period. The rnedicai V”§:~.i_ll’s

Rs.1O,OOO/W. Rs.20,000 is rnfedical and
incidental expenses to engage a taxi
for Ereatnient from his future loss of
income on { Rs.3OO
(income) 5.9 in all the petitioner
is enttit1ed”i;n.iv?, “of Rs..1.62,.4:OO as against
Tribunal. On the enhanced

compensation’; f:>*etit.’ioner is entitled for interest at 6%

the dVate———of’ petition till the date of payment. The

‘ .af5peaiv.cis’~a1’1oifia’ed in part.

Sd/~
JUDGE

Sd/4

t§Mt EGDGE