High CourtsSingle Bench

Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. vs Suchitra J.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 30 January 2015 · Citation: (2015) 01 KAR CK 0419

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Patil, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A. No. 5319 of 2014 (MV)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 1,009 words

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant-Corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 07/02/2014, passed in MVC No. 564/2012, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. And MACT, K.R. Pet, (for short Tribunal''), on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced.

2.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,670/- under different heads with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.

3.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The claimant is aged about 31 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as a Guest Lecturer in Government ITI College at K.R. Pet Town. She has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident contending that on 12.4.2011 at about 5.10 p.m. the claimant after finishing her work was returning to her house with her husband in a Motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.54.E.8594 and when they came near Ramakrishnegowda Koli farm on C.R. Patna Main road, at that time, the driver of KSRTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant from behind on attempt to over take another vehicle. Due to which, claimant and her husband fell down and she sustained comminuted fracture of the distal end of the radius (Colle''s displacement) to right hand and multiple injuries to all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to K.R. Pet Government Hospital and after providing first aid, the Doctor has advised her to take further treatment as there was fracture in right hand, then she was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysore, where, she took treatment as inpatient for two days, underwent surgery and thereafter, she has taken bed rest and follow up treatment for six months." 4. It is the further case of the claimant that, she has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges and on account of the injuries sustained by her, she has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 20%

5.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,40,670/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6.

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation has presented this appeal, for reduction of compensation.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

8.

The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for Corporation-Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, at the out set is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant is on the higher side and contrary to the evidence available on record and the nature of injuries sustained by her in the accident. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9.

After hearing the learned counsel for Corporation and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and resultant injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex. P4- wound certificate are not in dispute. Further it is also not in dispute that claimant is aged about 31 years and working as Guest Lecturer. On account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she took treatment as inpatient for two days, under went surgery and on account of the injuries, she has suffered permanent disability at 20%. The Doctor has been examined as CW1 who has deposed that, claimant has sustained closed fracture of comminuted distal radius and on 13.4.2011 surgery was conducted implants were fixed and on 27.11.2013 he examined the claimant and found slight swelling over right wrist region, minimal deformity of right wrist, slight pain over right distal forearm and wrist present, stiffness of wrist, joint line tenderness over right wrist and she was finding difficulty in doing stressful activities and according to him, claimant suffered 20% disability. The Tribunal, has assessed the disability at 10% and has also assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/- per month as she was working as Guest Lecturer which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the nature and duration of treatment taken, the percentage of disability suffered and the amount spent by her towards medical and other incidental expenses, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 18,870/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 76,800/- towards loss of future income, Rs. 10,000/- towards disfigurement, Rs. 10,000/- towards permanent disability and in all, Rs. 1,40,670/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and hence, interference by this Court is not called for, nor I find any justification or good grounds as such made out by the appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.

In view of dismissal of the main matter, the relief sought by the appellant in I.A. No. 2/2014 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A. No. 2/2014 is dismissed as having become infructuous. Ordered accordingly.