1 MFA E4923/20079
IN THE'. HIGH COURT OF KARNA"I'A}{A AT BANGALORE
DATED TH1S ON THE 26"" DAY OF FEBRUARY 20 1 Q
BEFORE
THE HON'Bi.E3 MR. JUSTICE ARAy'u\1D , .
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Rog:4323k2co.7..'(iv1Ve3f-eA.___A
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller.
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Kolar Division' Kolar, '- V j
R613. by the Chief Lau.r'Qf"l'icef;"'
KSRTC. Cer1traloi'f:'.~~1¢
""1515 IVEFA is filed 11/8 173 (21) of MV Act against the
_'§1lVd'gI1"1CI1i:5 and award dated 23.6.2007 passed in MVC
N_je.5':7/2004 on the file of theLAddL Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.} and
---Addi.?MACT. Kolar, awarding a compensation of Rs.29.420/-
'interesi @ 6% pa. from the date of petition till realisation.
ha"-Cl':'FC'8~Lll't€ACl in "t'n'e"Velainiant sustaining injuries. on
i it '-._vseetion fitii: claiming cornpensation of Rs. 1 130.000/~.
statement denying the petition averments. The
Trgibunal on considering therival pleadings. framed the issues
2 MFA 1. 4923/ 20079
This MFA Coming on for adrnission. this day. the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
‘ The appellant. herein [respondent before the Tri_bjiinal.}_*
questioning the correctness of the order passe-dV.’4_:
57/2004 dated 23.6.2007.
2. The facts in nutshell are: it
On 25.08.2003 at abotit the ciaimailt was
said to have boarded a i{SRTC’ No.KA–
0’7~F~660 from H»Ctoss :9 Kai{iiaraV¥an’d..Viit.teats eo»iitended in the
claim petition that the 5dr.iize1′ lC»’l:tl1.e Bus.’ avaslldiiving the vehicle
in a negligent niannef .to~..l_endanger the human life. On
account of the said’reel{ie_ss–~._di~~ivi’ng, the said Bus is said to
have fallen into ;)_it 0.11.’-ae’eotiht of forcible applying the brake
acC.ou’ntl_”oif “she has lodged a eiairn petitlon under
A3. Ogt’se’rvice of notice, the appellant herein filed its
5 M FA 14923/200 79
“Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal i.s just and reasonable or it is
required to be reduced or modified and 1’l’so. ”
what: extent ‘P
8. Though it is contended by» SI’i.Sarijee’v,,llltjhat
accident itself had not occurred. the ‘said’coiltent.ion”isl’lliaeblefio
be rejected for the simple reasori-.._that d’a_c:i1nien2tsl’produced
the claimant before the ‘l’r’ibunalll’n.ame.ly,llEx.,.l§tlll lcoipy of the
FIR}, E3x.P.5 [copy of the {colloid of seizure
rnahazar) and Ex.i§f3 (copy disproves the
said contentlon.lll::;’T:l-l’1Ve infact has been
considered theT:”ibutial”=§i(hlle vaI1swei’i11g the issue no.1 and
there is’;_no–. ‘E:enai:~l’e..ugrot’t*ncl'”–.n1a;de out. by the appellant to
discard this*fi_ndiV11g”.’ l*ller,1c’e.ll’t;he said contention is rejected.
;_l-an so far as'”tl’1’eV contention of the learned counsel for
lappel–la’nll.'” compensation awarded by the Tribunal
requires to b’ei__reduced is also not tenable for the reason that
‘the claianant as on the date of the accident being 29 year old
llas suffered compound fracture of left femur and under
“‘l«.t,he§heading injury. pain. sdfiering and agony. the Tribunal has
{‘5 MFA 14923/20079
awarded a sum of Rs..’20.000–00- This compensation awarded
for the injury that has been sustained by the claimant CE.1IV1V1iQ’l.’._V’
be said by any stretch of imagination to be on the higidei” :_.
Further, the claimant has produced all the 1I1€diC’Etl”b’i:l:lSv
Came to be Collectively marked as Z
prescriptions and considering the material o11,i’e:;:0rd. Lbe .’
Tribunal has awarded a sum of riiedical
expenses said to bare been ille._V_€lVain1ant. the
said amount was awarded bypptlrie ind: suffer from
any infirmity lforinieprfereliaee appellate stage.
Hence, the appeal rnerits.
Sci,’-
@3983
…..