The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. vs Sri. B.N. Rajendra Prasad Reddy

N.K. Patil

This appeal by the appellant-Corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 27/01/2012 passed in MVC No. 553/2011 by the II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bangalore (SCCH-13), (for short ''Tribunal''). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,500/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The claimant is aged about 25 years as on the date of accident, working as Design Associates in Tesco Hindustan Service Center Pvt. Ltd., Whiltefield, Bangalore, and earning Rs. 29,040/- per month. That on 8.6.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA. 51.W.366 along with his brother as a pillion rider from Bagaparthi to Chikkaballapura and when he came near Shettigere, at that time, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA. 07.F.996 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapura and thereafter to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated conservatively. It is the further case of the claimant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 25.8% to the right lower limb and 13% to the whole body.

On account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation. 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 and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,61,500/-under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, fixing the liability on the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Corporation has presented this appeal, both on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation.

I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer.

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 are not in dispute. In the said accident, claimant has sustained fracture of calcaneum and 1st and 2nd metatarsal bones of right foot which are grievous in nature, for that, he has taken treatment in Bowring hospital. The PW2-doctor has assessed the disability at 25.8% to the right lower limb and 13% to the whole body and stated in his affidavit that, claimant would find it difficult to discharge his day today activities normally in view of the disability sustained by him as he is working as Design Associate and to discharge the said work he has to effectively use his lower limb on account of fracture suffered by him to the right leg toes. It is the case of the claimant that he has lost his job, but he has not produced any documents to prove the same. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him, the percentage of disability suffered by him has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,500/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. The/said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, 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.

So far as the submission of the Learned Counsel for Corporation that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is concerned, the same cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected, for the reason that, the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact and accordingly, it is rejected, confirming the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.