MFA No.23373 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD V
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER,’ _
BEFORE 0. % 0 1 V4
THE HON’BLE MR.JUS1?ICI:}._’Bz;’S’LBAv§1’i-i.” ‘V 0. 0 1}
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST’? APPEAL’vN§;1233’73j.’2O09’~ (1§a=ii)’* V at 0′
A/w Misc. Civik N0.1O87″73}’~2O09& V10s050/2009
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Controllei’,e*~ E As 0
KSRTC Divisional Office,_” 2
Koppal, represfitiied aft prdesent
The Chief Law O’§fieVer,’:’-NE:KRTC,.._
Centrai”Offieei_:.
Gu1baftga.__ E …APPELLANT
(By Sri. ‘§~E’.’–.=1etri;\/v.01-‘€{r>Vs”e’.~VIAiia’:l>’1.;,’VAdvocate)
_ .Smt_. Ahantfialakshmi,
._.W/_o ‘}?anj1ai<1i._sh,na,
Ageds'aboi;t__45syears,
Agriculturist,'
R/oflanaval Camp,
E *-Tq. Géngavathi,
' .. Di'st..:n Koppal. …RESPONDEN'I'
WA'I'his miscellaneous first appeal is filed under
..,_Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the
judgment and award dated 16.06.2009 passed in MVC
MFA No.233'73 of 2009
No.47/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. D_n.} 85
MACT at Gangavathi awarding compensatiorrcpof
Rs.79,074/- along with interest at the rate of
from the date of petition till deposit. « 2 , L' 5 . ~
This miscellaneous first appeal
miscellaneous civil application 'coming –_4on_,.for]_ord_ers;»..p
this day, the Court delivered the V{olloWingi–icp ' ' " ~
Junomsnr'
In this appeal, the is
challenging the judgrri-eriti lioth June
2009 passed inplt/El/C :1 ~
2. of the appellant-
Corpo1v’ationi..:.:Vfjv:vs the quantum of
cornpensation contended that the amount
awarded oifd-RVs’}.79,074/– for injuries sustained
. .”=toV “the iiteetlhppby thewinjured-claimant is excessive and
V1iI1reas.on.ablee~.-
3. ‘l”_”p-.ha.\fe heard the learned counsel for the
‘V appellant perused the materials on record.
. 2. 5;
.v.> ;
MFA No.23373 of 2009
4. The accident has occurred on 14.10.2007 when
the petitioner was travelling in the KSRTC bus
registration No.KA-37 / F1197 from Gadag .
there is no challenge with regard__4to _-the 0″‘
negligence of the driver of the
was travelling, it is unnece’ssa:y _ >
in this regard. The nature of by the
claimant are clear’ froénidi and the
evidence of the of the wound
certificate; _ claimant as 45
years mentioned as under:
‘llvloose gum present
2) tenderriess overfithe chest’
examined by the claimant. He
his examination both clinically and
diagnos_ti’caEiy helped him to assess the physical
flrripairrrrent of the injured. He found sharp shooting
piairifdin the upper front teeth, which had incapacitated
-~-the claimant to bite even regular staple food. He also
MFA N0.23373 of 2009
noticed bleeding from the gums in the upper teeth_.__p’I’he
doctor has assessed the disability at 14.5% to the
region. However, he did not furnish thef’ V’
compared to the whole body. Claimant’
an agricultural coolie. The
assessment and has come» the if
disability could be assessed,<:oriipared._to theiiwheie body
at 5%. Taking the monthlyll/~, the
loss of out as
Rs.i,8oo/4 divided by 100
= of earnings x 12 =
Rs.1,80'O[l–'– of earnings). Having
regard, to the agesof tihelcilaimant found to be 45 years at
if if of the accident, applying the multiplier of 13,
a,..tl'l1fi.'- earnings is arrived at: Rs.23,400/–.
The«.,Tri]'3un'a'lihas awarded compensation under different
' –. V "heads as" under:
=1) ‘I-njijury, pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/~
Loss of earnings during the
medical treatment Rs. 6,000 / ~
MFA No.23373 of 2009
3) Medical expenses Rs.26,674/_–___’
4) Loss of future earnings Rs.23,40_o/3»._”._
5) Conveyance and nourishment Rs.
Tote} R’Si’i”.’-‘7i’9″é.:lV’)’V.V7V’%’V/iii”. T
5. Counsel for the
nature of the injuries sustained on the–..te’ethw{2iii’il’i:not it
result in physical disabi1ity””‘toi_:’the_Lexten’t’~ of: 5% as
assessed by the Tribunair : it
6. I this contention.
The eVidence_ofdoctor”disclosesvfthat the front teeth of
the -destabilised resulting in
shooting the is found to face serious
pajvnfilaeven toV’ibite_____norma1 food. Such condition will
‘cer’tain.1y’~af:fect._her heaith and her future earnings as
not find any good ground to interfere in
this The compensation awarded is just and
A » If “reasonable.
II’
MFA |\Eo.23373 of 2009
7. Hence, as the appeai has no merit, the sanie is
dismissed. it
Since the appeai is dismissed on .
of considering the Misc. Civil_ id”
condoning the delay of 35 days
Misc.Civi1 No.108050/
Accordingly, these app.1icationsiVVe;ite also
The amount in deposit V*Atifar1sferred to the
A. …..