High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director The … vs Fakruddin on 6 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director The … vs Fakruddin on 6 September, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
INTXHEHKHKCOURT(H?KARNATAKA

CHRCUTPBENCHJYFDHARWAD

DATED THIS 6th THE DAY or' sEPTEMBER_.:'_:'20--i.'of    _

BEFORE

THE HODPBLE MR. JUSTICE A,s_.lA,Bo?.A1\?NA'   D  :'

M.F.A. No.97+i_1,g2oos"{_1§/iv;  ~ D' '
BETWEEN:  it D

The Managing Director  _
The Karnataka State Road D .  .
Transport Corporation, C-ent:r»al   l "
Office, Sarige Bhayan, C3rulbar'ga.V  pp ~
Rep by Divisional 1Cio_ntro«ller_   l 
Be11anz.      ._   

____ H  '.;.;._ , V " '  Appellant
(By Sri.1F.S;Daba1i,'i1:Advl.']'._°

AND

1.

Fakruddin_p v
o. ‘Peera sab__ _
_ i’;AgetlH5S years lllll H
“‘PeLty”shop~keeper
V..c-R/o.,°’A_llipUr.a
Be1lalry–“_’l’a’l1,i1«: and District.

..I,a:_»s:rr1an

‘ .. V’ D S / 0”: Hanumanthappa
_ Agedzmajor, Owner of Hero Honda
“‘l’v’Iotor Cycle N0.KA 35/H4632
Driver in MMT C Ltd

i

§

3;:

ix.)

R/o. Station Road, Hospet.

3. M/S Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
By its Divisional Manager

Bellary.

(By Sri.Srishaila Adv. for R3)

oft<esp:::sicie:itsi K to

This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) praying
aside the judgment and aWard"datedi'l8.10.04 {passe=d in–_*

MVC No.352/O0 on the file of_t'ne Me2nber.,'.=5t1:i MACT,
and Addl. Civil Judge (S_I'.D1'1),AE3.€ll?1I'y3–~.,§i1I1d etc:…_

This appeal cominglllonlofor __£'1(V§l.1l'i':.ilS.'§'.'lt\5:'1".¥.:.l'Ll'2l'S day, the court
delivered the following: " ' '

The calling in question the
judgment; andliia'tt3(jl'1.$.102004, both on the ground of
negligence .__and v:_i7'i*:.h"""regard to the quantum of

compensa tion. V V.

the learned Counsel for the parties and

per 1 papers.

3.” ii’ In so far as the issue relating to the negligence, the

}l”{llI~)1.J._I1A;”Ail. has considered this aspect while answering issue

and 2. In this regard, at the outset, the Tribunal has

i

‘.;J

noticed the documents at Annexure–P-l, via, the FIR in Crime

No.},96/99. That apart, the spot panchanarna which vzas at

Ex.P.2 has also been noticed. On considering

documents and also noticing that the charge sheet ii

against the driver of the bus, has thereafter noticveidt~th;at

is no independent evidence on behalfiboif

Corporation to dislodge the sanie_i”and therefore; v-Vth’e_:T’ribunal ” i

has come to the conclusion gtha:t~.__the driiv’er.,_gof_.ithe bus
belonging to the appellant’ was causing the
accident. On that a9P¢ct”‘»0f” see no error
committed by thVe«.,Tri;biuria1 so togcaili foriiiiniterferenee.

4. Withregardiitovitheiiquantum of compensation, it is

to be noticedfhat that’th’e,}l”ribunal after taking note of the

__.docum,er}ts at andg?:’.7 has come to the conclusion that

hthei be reckoned at 25%. In this regard, the

1?iais_”_«.&1léi:€5llwnoticed the evidence of PW.2 who was

i exarnined idocitor. It is no doubt true that the claimant had

..’.A”gg;”ufferer;_i fracture of femur and other injuries. Since the doctor

not ‘stated with regard to any malunion and in that context

‘stated the disability to the limb at 25%, the Tribunal ought

‘kg

to have reckoned the disability to the whole body by applying

the conventional method of 1/3*” disability to the 1imbl”s.ta~*.;ed

by the doctor. If that is so, the disability would Irgéfafi 2-.T_f’ _

the income as reckoned by the Tribunalis considev–re:d. the

amount towards 8% disability is worked outfit iwpiill-be

of Rs.l8,720/-. Since the Tribunal has”

Rs.52,000/– under the said l1eadi,iiiiit’hiei e§<;cess"oi:i:p'ayment under
the said head is at is be noticed
that the Tribunal has notawarded:any"amoiint"under the head
loss of i'tgiiv…¢letermine the just
compensation have to be awarded to
the from out of the total
compensation' it the amount excess is in a sum of

Rs.19,2-80/–.ii" o.ut'"iof the total compensation the

i ii 'a–ppe'iil.ant,se are Apentitleifrtoithe reduce the amount of Rs.19,280/»

and' pay vtl1_eibal.ari*ce to the claimants with interest at the same

rate awarded}: by the Tribunal. The amount in deposit shall

transferred to the Tribunal and balance shall be deposited

appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of

..__Tireceipt of copy of this order.

f.

kg?

If X7

5. On deposit the same Shari} be disbursed’-Ea» the

claimants. In terms of the above, the appeai si:an§1..s”–<iVj's;'5c3.sV'(:<i

of.

N0 order as to costs.

Sub*