Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Jampanagouda @ Mudukanagouda on 9 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
MFA No. 100823 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100823 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
KSRTC KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH
ROAD, BANGALURU.
2. THE SELF INSURANCE FUND,
KSRTC.
BOTH ARE R/BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NWKRTC, HUBLI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAMPANAGOUDA @ MUDUKANAGOUDA
S/O. TAKANAGOUD PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & CONTRACT,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ:SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
BHARATHI
HM
2. NAGESH S/O. HAMMANNA NAYAK,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M AGE: MAJOR, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER,
Date: 2024.02.21
12:00:01 +0530 HANGAL DEPOT, HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 26.10.2013, PASSED IN MVC NO.78/2003 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, AT HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,20,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. ON RS.4,10,000 FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
MFA No. 100823 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. I. C. Patil, learned counsel for the
appellants and Shri. N. D. Gundi, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served with the notice, but
remained absent.
3. KSRTC is in appeal challenging the validity of
judgment and award passed in MVC No.78/2003 dated
26.10.2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
4.1. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166
of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act'),
contending that on 20.11.2002 at about 7.30 a.m., when the
claimant was proceeding from Bankapur to Chandapur on a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
Kavasaku motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-27/H-1869
along with his son-in-law and when they reached near
Mallanayakanakoppa, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-
31/F-381 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motor cycle whereby the claimant fell down and
sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was shifted
to the hospital. He has taken to treatment in the hospital and
he was cured all of his injuries except permanent disability of
his eyes.
5. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement.
6. Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition in a
sum of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC is in
appeal.
8. Shri. I. C. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
assessed the disability factor and it has taken 50% as a
disability for the whole body. 35% is the functional disability
which is incorrect with regard to the oral evidence placed on
record by PW.3 and 5.
9. He also contended that the disability factor is
assessed on the basis of evidence placed on record which is
opinion evidence and same has to be properly appreciated in
the light of injuries sustained by the claimant and material
evidence paced on record and sought for allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, Shri. N. D. Gundi, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment by
contending that the injured has suffered permanent disability in
the eyes and the same has been rightly appreciated by the
Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, it has
been established by the claimant that he has suffered
accidental injuries occurred on 20.11.2002 at about 7.30 a.m.,
when he was proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
No.KA-27/H-1869 involving KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-31/F-381. Immediately charge sheet came to be filed
against the driver of the bus and therefore, the claimant is
entitled for compensation.
13. The quantum of compensation adjudged by the
Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case in a sum of
Rs.4,20,000/- is just and proper.
14. PW.5 is the doctor who has given disability
certificate has been examined before the Trial Court and
thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the KSRTC.
15. The claimant has suffered fracture of facial bones
consists of mandible (lower jaw) maxilla (upper jaw) Zygomatic
(cheek bone) and orbit bone which may only result in a scar
and without complications to the eye ball and vision and
sometimes the fracture of orbit bone may result in injury to eye
and loss of vision.
16. The doctor has opined that there is a severe
damage to the optic nerve can cause loss of vision of eye and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
damage to optic nerve may not be noticed sometimes when
loss of vision occurs.
17. Therefore, taking note of the injuries sustained by
the claimant, the Tribunal discussed in detail about the loss of
future earning on the basis of disability including the discussion
in the deposition of PW.5.
18. PW.5 is none other than the treated doctor. He has
examined the patient for the first time on 20.11.2002.
However, he has admitted that he has not mentioned in the
case sheet as to what type of treatment that he has given to
the patient.
19. Taking note of a cumulative effect of oral evidence
of PWs.3 and 5 and also the medical records that has been
produced before the Court, Tribunal has rightly assessed
functional disability in 50%.
20. Even after the re-examination of the material on
record in the light of grounds urged the appellant, this Court
does not find any serious infirmity in findings recorded by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3144
Tribunal assessing the functional disability to the extent of
50%.
21. Accordingly, hardly there is a scope for reduction of
quantum of compensation.
22. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
(iii) Balance amount to be deposited within
four weeks from today.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
