Mr Praveen Kumar vs The Depot Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 920 Kant

                                         MFA 9386/2015

                             1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          BEFORE:

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

             M.F.A.NO.9386/2015 (MV - DM)

BETWEEN:

MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O BASAVARAJU N.L.
AGE 29 YEARS,
R/O NANJEGOWDANA DODDI POST & VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571 475.             ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUMANTH.L. BHARDWAJ, FOR SRI RAVINDA
  PRASAD.B, ADV.)

AND:

THE DEPOT MANAGER,
K.S.R.T.C DEPOT,
KOLLEGALA, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571 440.                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADV.)



      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT      AGAINST    THE     JUDGMENT   AND      AWARD
DATED:30.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLLEGALA, PARTLY
                                                          MFA 9386/2015

                                 2


ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION                FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

1. In respect of an undisputed accident which took place

on 01.02.2007, the Tribunal by the impugned award has

awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the ground that the

injuries suffered were simple in nature.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, during the

pendency of this appeal, has filed an application seeking to

produce the identity card issued for the appellant which

indicates that the appellant had suffered deformity to his

right limb with stiffness and also of the right ankle, and the

identity card also certifies that he had suffered 60%

disability. The photograph of the claimant indicating the

disability suffered is also annexed and certified in this

identity card. Learned Counsel submits that this deformity

suffered by the claimant was a direct result of the accident

and the same was not produced before the Tribunal due to MFA 9386/2015

inadvertence. He has submitted that this disability

certificate was renewed by means of another disability

certificate issued in the year 2017. It is submitted that this

document would indicate that the claimant would be

entitled to a much higher compensation than the one

awarded by the Tribunal, and therefore, it was a fit case for

being remanded to the Tribunal.

3. Smt. Shwetha Anand, learned Counsel for the

respondent, however, contended that there was no

necessity for remanding the matter since the documents

now sought to be produced were unacceptable and could

not be brought on record after a span of 14 years.

4. In my view, the question as to whether the claimant

has suffered permanent disability which had resulted in the

Directorate of Welfare of Disable and Senior Citizens,

Bengaluru, to issue a certificate would have to be examined

by the Tribunal. The claimant will have to establish before

the Tribunal that he had suffered deformity stated in the

certificate as a result of the accident by adducing cogent

evidence in that regard. Having regard to the fact that the MFA 9386/2015

Directorate of Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens,

Bengaluru, has acknowledged the disability, in my view, it

would be just and proper to remand the case to the

Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to permit the

claimant to adduce evidence to establish the deformity

stated therein.

5. It is open for the KSRTC to contend that the deformity

alleged was not the result of the accident and that the

certificate cannot be accepted by the Tribunal. All

contentions in this issue are left open.

6. The Tribunal shall, having regard to the fact that the

matter is of the year 2007, shall make all endeavour to

dispose of the claim within a period of eight months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered

accordingly.

7. The Tribunal while awarding compensation shall take

note of the fact that the period of 1510 days of delay which

was condoned by this Court shall not be taken into

consideration for the purpose of awarding interest.

MFA 9386/2015

8. The appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to

return the original documents produced before this Court

after retaining the photocopy for the record.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK