~.(}0k11I:'R;§;-,a;1,VvD.§§Iu¥:)li, """ "
:1:
§N1?H§HKHiCOURT(fl?KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 20§;9--- f A'
PRESENT
THE H{)N'5LE MR.JUs'm:E§ 'l-;::<§1:«IIQ'1'.'L:1"yJ:"," .
AND
THE HGIWBLE MR.JU§¥"I.¢§E JAWAD R:§§=i1n}x_
MISCELLANEOUS. F-:.13sT .fl§f5'?E-¥§I.S"No.25iC)'] 2003
c;w M.F.A.No.2519jSL(}O3L§3.14[2(}O6 (MV)
In M.F..A.No.252{3_[200§~ j; '
DE':*xv§iE:;\£_:-- '
The Députjf'
Northwest Kazjqataka Road
Tx'zm;i+:;)oz't CorpO'ra'&'on, V
Bynifis Chief Officcr. ...Appe11a:D.t
'gBy7'$;¥:.DM;;¢,§x;'.T'g»aéhan M. Khannur, Aciv.)
V " _ AND?-
' [D Gangappa Betageri,
" _ Aged about 40 years,
__ " ' ' " Ocgcweaving Business,
.R-ssiéent of Bazaar Gaiii,
Belgaum. ...Respo11de.nt
(By S:ri.SrinaI1d A.Pachchapure, Adv)
:2:
This appeal is filefi under Section 173 (1) of the M'€._Act
against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2002 I3£i$Sf;(i'.i_I}
MVC No.15{)8/ 1998 on the file of the Prl. Civiii. »J'u§1gé:»,.,
Sr.D11., 85 Member, Addl. MAUI', Belgaum, H
the claim petition for compensation.
IN M.F.A.N'o.2519 2003 »-
BETW BEN:
The Dcputy General Manager;
North West Karnataka Road
Trazxsport Ccrporattion,
Gokul Road, Hubli, ' '_ ; _ V
By its Chief Law' Ofiicer. ~ _ i, .A " ...Appe]la1}1:
(By Sri.Madan Muhan 55%,) "
1. Sh:i.Rame--sh'C33§a:1dfii%:ppa Kamakar,
AgedV-gfiaeut 40 ycars",'--
_Oc<::W'<":avVi::1gV Bus*iné':§s,
_ Resident "(»f_Bazar Gafii,
.,__ ' Klzasbag, Bélgazr ' .
V' 3 " V Irappa Grurihesur,
A'gei"i'»*1.ajfry"'
. "'VOcc:Bi1s?E'aess,
Rejsiderit of 3 1 332.31" Gafli,
Khasbag, Belgaum.
«,'}'hé Divisional Manager,
" - _;Na§:i¢:ma}. Insurance Company Limited,
1132, Ramadev Galli,
Belgaum. .. . Respondents
(By Sri.Srinand A.Pac]1chapure, Adv for R3,,
R2 %
Sri.Vishwanath S.S}1ettar, Adv for R3)
This appeal is filed undsz' Section 173 (13 o£$'_£i:'e"5:~;2;i*=.% .
against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2032 yasséd
MVC 110.1509/1998 an the file offhe P1'i."'v'C.§VT§}V"J{1£1g€:_,
Sr.Dn., 85 Member, Acidl. MACT, :?C3eIgsm.m,'..&pat't1Vy ._aI}0w1'ngj';
tha claim petition for cad, Huhiif ' ...Respondent
(E33; Khannur, Adv)
._ is filad under Order 41 R 22 of CPC
r/\#'--..'Sec:.1?3}w'( 1} 0f the: MV Act against the judgment anfi
_awa.1'd fiated 31.12.2002 passed m we No.15o9/1995 on
(Sf the Prl. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., fie Member, Addi.
" Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for
V ccimpcnsafion.
Thase appeals and MFA Cm-b. coming on for htsariag,
this ciay, Ajit J.Gm1jai.J., dtlivered the follaowingz
JUDGMENT
1 . Mr.Mac1a11mo3:1a;{1 M . Khamimgs’, ” .’.j_11<'st$,&
enteieé appearance for the appe}ia;it,$
Registty ':10 Show his Ad":-:.1o..¢:§_:i:c3 of " L'
Smt.H.R.R<muka. Registoty is éfo giiélete the
name of S;'i.Pvi.B.NarguI;.€1 of SnI.Srinand
A.Paohhap*t1re, a:§'Co1311L§éI tv};1:fo:'»'i'ojspondent.
2. :o;fo;€:sVVobjecfion are ciisposed
of by this oo’1i1’n11onfj.1_i(1gii1a:;i’t.. ‘ ‘
3. _ out of a common aociéent. The
pcaséj A. in both these appeals is that on
proceeding fiom Neginai to Belgaum
oi). motor cycie bearing 1~c§’s¥:zatio:1 No.KA-22
7__L/ 35¢};-9;” claimant in MVC 510.1503/1993 was the ridezr
” I motor biktsz which would relate: to
Q A§a§.fi.’}§.No.252o/2003. The claimant in M.V.C.No.1509/1998
u hovas the piiiion rider of the motor bike which Wouid relate to
M.F.A.No.2519/2003. At about 9.30 p.m. when they were
J’
proceeding on the motor bike near Tigadi cross, one
bus belonging to the appellant herein came
side ;i.e., from Belgaum side in reckless speed.Vb3?’ _
a cart and dasheti against their mestércyctet w1:ie11»4.was*7on””.
the correct side of the mad. flue to
appellants were thrown out and’stif.Feredv.seVe1″eei§1jti;§teé'{ The
claimant in M.F.A.No.2539]20(}3″\:z;t§1:d€i’»eonteeti’that he has
suflered multiple fracturetst 9;; right hand, we
shouider, face The clam’ ant in
the eofitettd that he has suffered
fracmzevvtof fractures beiow the knee at
three piaeesef leg; pieces of bones came out from
” ‘i’}.eg,fV: fwgictute ‘of—«:ight hand fingers, fracture of right
to right slide head and other parts of the
boézihgéf tttem would contend that the accident and the
injueies “tee resuit of the rash and negligent driving of the
“..fhi1st”..f’I:)e1Vong’ng to the Corjpcrafion. On notice, the
Coeporation has entered appearance and has flied
” Hotbjectiozts. They would interaiia contend that the claimants
themselves are whotiy responsible for the accident inasmuch
: 6 :
as they were coming in a rash and negligence manner.
Hence, the negligtmce cannot be attributed tojhthe
Corporation. They would also contend
respondent before the Tribunal was not the u V’
in question. They would also conten.dWtha: the
claim is on the higher side. ()1;
recoré, the iearned Member a ‘V
finding that the driver of the Vieolely for the
accident and indeed both the claim’
petitionie have “eevere _iiij11n’es. Hence, awarded
coeapeneefion. —
4, _;MI.eMade11′”:mohen v’M.i&aenur, learned counsel for the
I V vehemently submit that the evidence on
1eeo:d Advoee.Vvhoi-.i:1.-spire confidence and further the evidence
2 OI1A1″f:_COIffIi ‘zieee not Show that the bus belonging to the
is responsible for the accident. He filrther
« i’e:.;.1’i;;~.1re_’ini’s that the accident has taken piaee at half past nine.
.« _£jie:1ee, the rash and negligence cannot be attributed to the
‘:.”bus. He further submits that the ieantzed Member of the
/
Z
Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation under fl
: 7 :
the head pain and suffering taking into consideration each. of
the nature of the injuries which is impexmissmle.
8
ES. M:::.Pachchapu:ve, ieaxned counsel for one
ciaimant would support the judgmeat and .
submits that evidence on record u ” u
accident has occurred due to the reek
of the bus. He fufiher submifis
awarded is on the lower side. c1;§jse’«_VV:0¥:ei:jeef;§.ox1s are
fixed albeit with a delay ‘£23.58 VA
6. We-.1iaveV ‘ ..judgment and awarci passed by
the ‘§3:1_ ‘V£.hc–._ instance, we are required to
«–.exa£n__C1f.1e_..fd’1e actiiéni-;!:.>–ie negligence inasmuch as that was
by the Coxporafion. Indeed it has to be
néticed the statement of objectimas, the Corporafion
‘ehhas that the bufleck cart was going ahead of the
driver was examineé as RW-} and he states that
‘ fcguar perstms were coming on four motor bikes in the
” meeposite direction and they were Cflmifig in the middle of the
/
i
road. He node-ubt Weuld éepose that he slowed ciewn the fl
:8:
vehicle ané beam of the headlight was ;:ec1.’:1orafion came on the extreme right
Side’ fig’-,._Ven”2vmng side. Having looked into the cm} and
efivitience, We are of the View that the finding
‘VVreco1:(‘ied”‘v.b§% 4 t}:1e Tribmxal an the question of actionable
V’ :f11eg’iig.ence does not wanant interference.
‘ This takes us to the determination of compensation in
M.F’.A.No.1SO8/1998. Indeed, Mr.K}1annur is right in
submitting that the Tzibunal was not justifieci in aWam
compensation for paia and suflering for each iZI1_]-1}.I”y;,”:.’!”T.h{“:
total amount awazded for pain and sufiering is
We are eonstrajned to note that the learned
Tribunal has not awanieé any sii3§teiint._ of
amenities. Thus, even we are ‘of “the that the
compensation under the head Vtiizxotiereates
on the higher side. Eat, ””the n’o’1:~’-‘graiI1tiIxg of
amount towards Iosstat of added, the
compensation of and loss
of ame31;itieS” in so far as the
hospitalisation’ &Iftd’iS concerned, the amount of
Rs.24,5GC3/’.:a.11d aiso appears to be reasonabie.
< The 1V_\r§emu¥:V)"e3r'v–3–.'-'« the Txébunal has taken the income of
{$3.109/~ per clay and after deducting the
pezeetitage has awarded a sum of Rs.54,{)O(}/«
j as lossxoifteaming capacity. We once again amrm the same.
V' '2_:TbLe's1;ln3<Vef Rs. £6,200] — for supplementing the compensation
toxyexfls disability also is just and proper. Thus, the total
T éohnpensation of Rs. 1,763,390/~ to us appears to be just and
«/42
U proper.
0/
:10:
8. This takes us to the next; 'A V' 'V
View that the compensation awardeid,
inasmuch as if pain and sutI’c*1:fi1:.gK anVc2i’~1eesVof* ,
included the compensation of bevgiust and
proper. We also note in and
out of hospital for at
Rs..’:,60,00(}/ff is aiso just and
proper. ewaxded under other
heads of Rs. 1,153,000] ~
The” Vfotai of Rs.4,86,8OO /- in the
circumstances jiiet and proper. We are of the View
‘ “*?ha1’:~–.if iS”*I},€)’tz0I:1 the””}:i;igher side not the said compensation
:a::’nVo_zi:;tv’is
_ 9. Tixiis. takes us to the cmss objections filed by the
M.F.A.No.i2519/2000. Since we are of the View
‘thVai’ fiie compensafion is just anti proper, there is no gcope
.fef any further enhancement. We also note that there is
inordinate delay of more than 800 (33378 ix: filing the cross
abjection. Inéeed, the courts can be iiberal in cases of
/
: 11 :
nature but that would be in the cases where it is foun:_i___that
the compensation awarded requires upward revision’;
not fad that it requires se.
10. Having given our anxious co;1’s”ia’h%.tati§)n Vwé’-.1Tim’iv.f11ai~..
the appeals filed by 3:116: Corporatiexn
objections do not mexit considézféifign.
11. The amount in to the respective Tribunai. Sd/-Mi Judge Sdfg Iudgfi