IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCEHT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED TRIS THE 13m DAY OF JANUARY, 293*}
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE} V. JAGANIxIAfIf:I5IAN5f: .
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ARpEAL""NO;7Q2--.9/::0Of7{MV)' '- '
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, HUBLI, REP. BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
I ....APPELLANT
(BY SR1. H.R.EENTUR, ADv.----).._
AND:
DI~IARENENDRAi_:S/{j"B_HA.RANf.qAI3RA_.'
AGED ADOUT'5e'Y__EA.RS_.R/«QQLIAC
COLONY, I<:U'O_AC:II1'_.ROAD.»JAMIIIIANDI, '
BAGALKQTA. " '<:. _, " ' "
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V”‘SI~III.(ARA.I3″R;.’ “A_D\I.}
.~TIAI_IS A”PREAL~I”S FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
_ AG._AIN.ST__TIIE JUDGI\£ENT’AND AWARD DATED 31.1.2007 PASSED IN
V VNIX/C NO.596_/f2a_Q3 ON THE INT. EOF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN)
.__.A1\’D\JMVF’Ca AvND.._MACTmv JAMKHAND1, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
O:?’R.S’.1,56,é6′?3/’gz WITH INTEREST @; 6% RA.
‘ V ‘ .TI’II.S VAPPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COIIRT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
¥\)
JUDGMENT’
This appeal is by the NWKRTC, Hubli ea.ll:i1a_g~.._in
question the compensation awarded by the .
respondentswclaimants.
2. Learned counsei for the iaippveiliarit–‘C_orporation’
submits that the MACT erred_ir_1 recording a fintling °tha~ti.the
accident occurred due to theiifault by the_Co.r.poration bus
driver and consequeiitly could “not have
awarded the amount towards ipeirma_.n.e’1:it:disability and loss
of inco’rneiiid’u.r£fng whienithe respondent continued
the work andthere”‘:was«_no.,1of3s of employment even after the
accident. As suoh,’._thie_q’uantum also requires to be reduced.
On.._the other hand learned counsel for the
Vitresppc-nderxtaérlaimant supported the award of the Tribunal by
su3″j_1nit’tvin*g:_that’after retirement, the claimant would find it
difi’ir:u1t__”toVi«lget some employment and therefore award of
amount under the head of loss of permanent disability is
‘ =jus–ttf1ed.
/’
ta
3. Having thus heard both sides insofar as the
accident is concerned, I am unable to agree
51m fi\¢’V’&4~33L’iI4ia-»..€c “‘§i’¢£’ ‘
appellant’s counsei becau
it
he MACT has *
claimant had produced docurner1ts….as_ per’Ai?–t7_
among which we find charge sheet, spot»
FIR and in addition, the ca’-se*o_f the’v.ciairnant’ :vh’efore–‘i the r L’
Tribunal was that the bus driven
by the driver concerned–…_d’ashiegd petitioner and
his wife. Such stand supported by
the on the finding
of ior. So far quantum is
concerklptfl”#15?/.};a;ii?s is iiistified in submitting that
the Tribiinai’ granted compensation towards
loss of–.permanent~disa’bi1ity and loss of income when the
i°c]ain1ant7hirnself suhniits that he continues to Work without
1_oiss. of .Ve1np’Edy*-tnent or any loss of salary and when the
accident he was aged only 52 years. Under these
V’-circumstances, the question of awarding compensation
loss of future earning capacity in respect of
respondent who happened to be an employee getting
3
J
P~ .
government salary, does not arise and so far as loss of
income during treatment period is concerned, no doeiiment
was produced by the claimant to show that helostii *
during the period of treatment. _
4. Therefore, cornpensation awarded iwilirihvave to be r ‘
reduced by disallowingpthe loss of
income during treatmen~i:andi.i: p1o:’ssVii. o’f.ipieir1nanent disability.
In other words, reduced by
R364, 173 Rs. 1,5e,673–, the
claimant Eés.9}.,500/~» instead of
Rs. 1,56,673 / i. p of the Tribunal
remains undisturbed; V i ii
Th–e’a”ppeai?.”i’s allowed thus. Amount in deposit
be tranisf__errs’pedi togthe