Karnataka High Court
Nandu Ramji Kale vs The Managing Director on 26 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4554
MFA No. 25870 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25870 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NANDU RAMJI KALE,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: ACCOUNTANT,
R/O. MATUNGA, BOMBAY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. H. MUTALIK DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORTCOPORATION,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
2. THE SELF INSURANCE FUND,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
Digitally
signed by
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
ROHAN
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
HADIMANI
Date:
T 2024.02.28
12:12:10 ...RESPONDENTS
+0530
(BY SMT. SHOBHA H, ADV. FOR
SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173 OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1966, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN MVC
NO.221/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT IIND ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) DHARWAD ON THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4554
MFA No. 25870 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement
of compensation, being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 16.09.2011 passed in MVC No.229/2009 on the file of
learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad (for short,
'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts are that on 17.12.2008 at about 7 a.m.,
in the premises of Dharwad Old Bus-stand, the petitioner along
with family members was waiting for the bus; at that time,
NWKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-576 driven by its
driver in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to
the petitioner as well as his family members, which resulted in
injuries to them and immediately, they shifted to Civil Hospital,
Dharwad for treatment.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself
as PW1 and got marked exhibits to substantiate his claim. The
respondents examined one witness as RW1 and got marked
documents as Ex.R1 & R2. The Tribunal on considering the
evidence available on record awarded global compensation of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4554
Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri.S.H.
Mutalik for the appellant/claimant as well as learned counsel
Smt. Shobha H for Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel for
respondents/NWKRTC and perused the material available on
record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal committed grave error in awarding global compensation
of Rs.40,000/-, inasmuch as the appellant took treatment at
Hospital, Mumbai and he had produced sufficient evidence
before the Tribunal. He submits that without taking note of the
same, the Tribunal proceeded to award meager compensation.
Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/Corporation supporting the impugned judgment
and award would submit that the appellant in support of his
claim, has not produced any cogent evidence before the
Tribunal. It is further submitted that taking note of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4554
evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded just and
proper compensation, which does not call for interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, the only
point that would arise for consideration is, whether the
appellant/claimant would be entitled for enhanced
compensation?
8. Answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
9. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of
the accident on 17.12.2008 resulting in injuries to the claimant.
Due to the accident in question, the appellant sustained several
injuries and he took treatment at Civil Hospital, Dharwad. The
appellant has produced certain medical documents as per Ex.P6
to P9, which would indicate that he was taking treatment prior
to the accident in question. Considering these aspects, the
Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellant has not sustained
any permanent disability or loss of income due to the accident in
question and therefore, awarded global compensation of
Rs.40,000/-. This Court on perusal of the material available on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4554
record does not find any error in the finding recorded by the
Tribunal. However, taking note of injuries suffered by the
appellant and treatment taken by him, it would be just and
appropriate to award another sum of Rs.50,000/- without any
interest, in addition to what is awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The respondents/Corporation shall deposit a sum of
Rs.50,000/- before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from today. On such deposit, the same shall be paid to the
appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is
modified to that extent.
11. With the above terms, the appeal stands allowed
in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
