The Managing Director Ksrtc vs A D Naveen on 25 February, 2009

194 THE} tilt}!-i SOUR!' 01*' l:-B;v';i\2A:3;g3:<ga'i?E:V_AV:  

M.F.A.N().9*2?4i 20i}vs{imi)'T

I:$£i3'i'Wii'.E'}1'~l:

'rm; MANAGING iJ1m::c:1m':_K:3mjj<: " 
C.EN'l'i€AL (.)l+'Fl{.3i:§, K H Rom),   
SHANTHINAGAR   '
BANGALORE ..    I    
REF. BY CHiE§_§'L§¥;W_.0.FFiCiER _  " 
Nl33i<.R'i'C.. ' '      

 APPELLANI'
(By Sri  .13:  B1~12§R2.~;*1'§i'T'2gL3T:s(§}3:~:, ADV.)

.&_b1£J_;_

 1 ._""~A D:'f€.AVEif'.i'i«V.. ..... 

,  sir} mzvamnxawa
 1. .AGEajAB"oUT 24 YEARS
 R/.0....A;~.Ii£::;i*:'HAPU§2A ViLLACiE
A '-~*'rARH<:;::R§ TALUK,
 NOW RQMT YAGATI VILLAGE
ATAND 903?, YAGAT1 HOBLI,
» KADUR TALUK
" *  _c:H11<MAGALu:~»: L)lS'l'HlC'l'.

 "SIr~iiVAPU'l'Hi<Air"PA (3rADHU(SrlNAMU'I'I'A
3 AGES ABC! UT 4? YHEAHS

l{SR'I'{j BUS DRIVER

YALEBURGA DEPOT

KGPPALA DViSIC)N

KUPPAL DISTRICI' fil.5S BEARING
Ni) KA--37[ it 186

 FEESPONDENTS



*rm:.~; MFA mm) U/S 173(1) or NW AC1' A:;§A:;us*:'
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.12.2GO?j"§?¥§3SE}D
IN MVC NO.116f'.3f)06 0N THE 1211.5; OF <::1v:1L_'v.Ju;:";a_3£::

(SR.{)N.) 65 MEMBER, mm, KADUR, Afu%;¥A11?:}--m».::J:"----;a 
COMPENSATION op Rs.1,62,5a0;~ WETH I1s:frER1t«;s*r  6'%=__ 

PA. FROM THE DATE OF PE3Tf'I'IQN..T1LL I§EPC§;'3':I'_I'. V'

Thia appeal com'1ngVon ff}:  

court delivered the foHc~wiH[g:_V

This  is    the
quaéntmnj;    passed by the
MACS' at  xv; / 20%.

2.  '}".hé:    cflf the case are that (rm

23.5.2UO€5" p.m., the first respundent was

   ti1 @"'appc1iant's bus bearing N.J<.A~3'?/F-

    to tmppal to attend Air Foxfie interview

é€__u1§.oppa'j;:E-.V.'I':he driver of the buss drove the bus in a rash

 and izegfigent maimar near Kalyani Factory near Kappa}

 '3'_Q§§%.r: Within the jurisdiction of Munirabad Police

  _ __§3tatioI1 and iost mama} and dashed against the tipper

iarry bearing No.KA-35/5167 Whiclite. was parked an the
ieft: side 01' the road from behind. As a result of which

the iirst respondent sustained ixxjuxies. 'l'hereafter he

/9:/,.

was taker: to District Hospital, Koppai, where he was an

inpaflent fer a day and shifted to Nan}appa

Shimoga, and admitted as an inpatient 1 ”

ts 25.5.2006 and 27.5.2006 re»’311.–5.2<§oe"."j'3§,;-1{<:;$1'.sht:..¢ V'

took follow up treatment. t»fi'3,at~ . he ._

suffered permanent disabilitgrtéen aeee11.nt.ef in V

the accident, he ttzé"

compensatioll on vari01’1s.s.heaVds.:’V

3. 013 recei7{.étVL:V1″0§° txleiiee 2 Tribunal, the
appeliant appeared and filed
their _V istatement denying the
aflegatiori-s_n1ade petition and contending

that drive1’w…ef ttte appellant bus was in no way

»I§eg§gent.sca1gt1t dismissal of the claim petition.

4;. h thsiiasis of the above pleadings, the Tribtmai

i’ramedVLjzeV feflowing issues far its consideration:

At ‘T *«_.i) Whether the petitioner proves that on
At 23.5.2006 at about 5.00 pm. when he Was
traveiling in the :~;s1~<*re bus bearing Ne.i<.A-
3'?/F3186, at that time respondent No.1

being the driver of the said bus drove the

/9

same in . rash and negligent manner with
excessive speed near Kaiyani b'e.eto_r§f* in
Koppel and he dashed the bus to the

Lorry bearing Ne.1-§A~3E,i/5167 «' _
which was parked on the left sjdeef 'the um-a".c§–.T '

and thereby caused t:i1e'att<:icf=.ez1?t."e:i1V:1'ci me'

that the petitioner A

ii) Whether p6titi0Iif#?:.I.””-is V.e1-f1.i:ii:£e_’e’_: ‘V

compensation fren1.ife$pe1_1dentsV_No,,i and 2?

If so, at wI1ai”rate’? .v ” ‘

iii) er V” ‘V

5. HtV:’he petitioner examined
himseifiee PW1 liamath as PW2 and

got 1;12n_€i(ed4.V P324, while the respondents

31} anjfwevidexxee. b’urti1er h’2xs.C–1 to G’?

A thmugh the Court Commiseioner.

fine basis of the material on record, the

A awarded compensation of i<Is.1,f)2,6{)U/– with

ifjiterest at 6'?/o p.a. from the date of claim petitien till

deposit. Being aggrieved by the said quantum of

f4/w

compensation, the corporation has preferred this

appeal.

‘”I’. 1 have heard the iearned counsel for. K

3. 1:; is submitted on behaif o:&m&»,app6;1a:g¢ _tnej

triimnal was not justi:3ea&Aj””in a;*aum oi’=.

Rs.(:lU_.U0{)/- on the ;~-hiead of_ and
Rs.E>5,U()0/- {he bills
produced “l'{s.58,U00/-and
further tJL¥.éV “(Hill the other fieads
are Q12” reduction in the

appeal. . %V

9., ‘V to the abeve submission, the only

» fi3,’iS(‘:S for my conaaideration is, as to whether

award passed by the tribtrnal reqtxires

zi1’iif,c:I”‘EE1’e11ce.

«’ From the material on rectxrd, it is seen that the

first reapondent had sustained deep lacerated wound

over right 16′: and fracture of right tibia and fibula in

middle third and that he was an i11–patie3:1t and that he

4%,

took foliow up tmamlent. The first respondent was

working as an itliectrician and hliectrical Supervisor-and

getting an income of Ks.€),UOU/– p.m. k«’11I’tt1<f;3{'_

let in the evidence of PW}! 1)r.Un1esh Kamatii wikzfiu M

stated that the first responde11t'"'Vor1«

irac' ture of both bones of the

disability to an extent of 7.59m; the '1'he
tribunal on the basis" }1§'€iifi§f::*i.%i;f; :< 511'rec<–)V1V'€i Viawardeci
coztapemaatjon ofks. 1,b2,5£iQ heads:

i}PaiI1a;¢1Ci':3iifIi=:I4§'I1gs–~.'*': Ti-is. 30,000,!»

: Rs. 65,000]-

iii}’C9nveya;1.CéV,’ v§xH:{a~»nOuflshment
attentiant chargefi : Rs. 15,000/–

‘~;i.v)i;t2ss of earning capacity : Rs. 48,000] ~

.V:11:ner1ities 2 Ks. 5,000/~

. ” <51? during treatment
' : Rs. 9,000/–

Totaix Rs. 1,623,000 / –

11;’ Considering the fact that the first rmpondent was

” véorking as an Electrical Supervisor and was said to be

earriing a sum cf k-€s.6,00U/-, on the basis of i:3x.i«’– 10

though psmduced showing the net salary of the first

%/«

reepondent at Ks.4,£”>52/ ~, asseesed the monthly income

of the 1″1:rst respondent at Hs.3_.U{)0/ –onlj§i”

accordingly, awarded i<s.48,£:»{)U/ –to-wards

earning capacity. Since there r1iai?e"

and other injuries, a sum of Ks.'13.Q.u§l0

on the head of pain and suffefing whieh*-iité my lliiiew is V'

not umeasonable. awalfd of l'<s._.A15,U{5Uf"–'l towards
conveyance and other cannot also
be considered llilrlreasoriézble the fact that

he was . up treatment.

12. ‘Medical “i<Is.f»9,688/ – were produced.

13. 5- –Havi:4l’ig'”l.:he evidence of the doctor PW2

” ‘th”e..1fl;imel offiurgery, there were implants in the

” note of the fact that some amount

xéozgld for removal of the implants, though

_1″_t;e eefiial medical bills amotmted to l:5,{)00[– by taking Into