Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Shivadevappa S/O Basavanneppa Gouri on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:803
MFA No. 101242 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101242 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NWKRTC, NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
LAW OFFICER, HUBLI.
(OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.
KA-25/F-1995)
2. THE SELF INSURANCE FUND,
NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
LAW OFFICER, HUBLI.
(INSURER OF BUS BEARING NO.
KA-25/F-1995)
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
(BY SRI. P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE)
signed by
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
HM
AND:
Date:
2024.01.23
16:31:29
+0530
SHIVADEVAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GOURI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SOLARGOOPPA, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SADASHIV S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.451/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., DHARWAD
ITINERARY COURT, KALGHATAGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS. 68,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:803
MFA No. 101242 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel Sri.P.R.Bentur and
Sri.Sadashiv S.Patil.
2. KSRTC is in appeal challenging the judgment and
award passed in MVC No.451/2007 on the file of Addl.
MACT, Dharwad sitting at Kalaghatagi.
3. Brief facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the appeal are as under:
3.1. In respect of injuries sustained by the claimant being
inmate of the bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1995 having
suffered the injuries on 17.07.2007 at 10.10. a.m., laid
the claim before the tribunal. Claim petition was resisted
by filing necessary written statement.
3.2 Tribunal after raising necessary issues and considering
the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded
the compensation in a sum of Rs.68,000/- as under.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:803
Sl.No. Name of heads Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain and suffering 30,000-00
2 Food and nourishment, 20,000-00
medical expenses,
etc.(including medical bills of
Rs.9,898/-)
3 Transportation expenses 2,000-00
4 Loss of income during period 4 16,000-00
months(4000X4)
Total 68,000-00
4. Smt. P.R.Bentur, learned counsel for appellants
vehemently contended that the tribunal has granted
excess compensation as the claimant has suffered only
simple injuries and sought for modification of the quantum
of compensation.
5. Per contra, Sri.Sadashiv S. Patil contended that the
claimant did not chose to file the appeal and in the event if
the claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation,
compensation needs to be enhanced and he also
contended that this court by exercising the powers vested
in the court under Order 41 Rule 33 may enhance the
compensation as the injured has suffered a fracture in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:803
neck of the femur as could be seen from the Ex.P.10 which
the radiological certificate issued after verifying the X-ray
exhibit P.11 and sought for dismissal fo the appeal of
KSRTC and reassess the compensation.
6. Having heard the parties in detail, this court perused
the material available on record meticulously.
7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the injured has suffered the injuries
being inmate of the bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1995 on
17.07.2007 at 10.10 am.
8. Though, in the wound certificate initially mentioned
that the claimant has suffered simple injuries, X-ray
report-Ex.P10 and radiological report Ex.P.11, would go to
show that there was fracture of neck of femur suffered by
the injured. Therefore, quantum of compensation awarded
by the tribunal is on the lower side.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:803
9. Taking note of the fact that since 2014, claimant did
not chose to file any appeal even after service of notice,
there is no scope for enhancement of compensation.
10. Consequently, the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal is to be confirmed by dismissing
the appeal.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Admission declined.
ii) Appeal is dismissed.
iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
the tribunal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
