IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.207/2016 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4514/2016 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.207/2016 Between:
North West Karnataka Transport Corporation, Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubli. By its Managing Director, Represented by its Chief Law Officer.
(By Ms. H. R. Renuka, Advocate) And:
1. Mohammed Saleh S/o Late Mohammed Isaq, Aged about 46 years, R/o Near Jamiya Masjid, Roashan Mohalla, Kasarakod Post, Honnavara Taluk- 581 334.
... Appellant 2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Honnavara Branch, III Floor, PCARD Bank Building, Court Road, Honnavara Taluk- 581 334.
…Respondents.
(By Sri. K. Prasanna Setty, Advocate for R1 And Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi, Advocate for R2) This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 01.09.2015 passed in MVC No.85/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Kundapura, awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,210/- with interest at 6% p.a, from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4514/2016 Between:
Sri. Mohammed Saleh Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Mohammed Isaq, R/o Near Jamiya Masjid, Roshan Mohalla, Kasarkod Post, Honnavara Taluk- 580 301.
(By Sri. K. Prasanna Setty, Advocate) And:
1. Managing Director NWKRTC, Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubli.
… Appellant 2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Honnavara Branch, 3rd Floor, PCARD Bank Building, Court Road, Honnavara, Uttara Kannada Dist. - 581 334.
…Respondents.
(By Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi, Advocate for R2. Notice to R1 is dispensed with) This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 01.09.2015 passed in MVC No.85/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Kundapura, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement.
These appeals coming up for Admission this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Appeal in M.F.A.No.207/2016 is by the Appellant- North West Karnataka Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2015 passed in MVC No.85/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, AMACT, Kundapura, awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,210/- with interest at 6% p.a, on the ground of liability and quantum. Appeal in M.F.A.No.4514/2016 is by the injured-claimant as against the above said judgment and award seeking enhancement.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, on both the appeals.
3. The accident is of the year 2013. The accident is not in dispute. The claimant has filed claim petition before the claims Tribunal having suffered the injuries in the road traffic accident. In support of his claim having suffered injuries, he has examined a Doctor as PW4, who has deposed that the injured has suffered two grievous injuries and other simple injuries. PW4-Doctor further stated that the injured had taken treatment as an in-patient from 13.12.2013 to 26.12.2013 and also follow-up treatment for another 4 times. PW4 further stated that the injured has spent Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- for food and nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
4. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that with reference to the injuries suffered by the injured and also considering the evidence of Doctor- PW4 what has been awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant supports the order of the Tribunal and also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side and it has to be enhanced.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out even to admit these Appeals. Though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on little higher side that itself is not a ground for interference with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. The rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus is held to have been proved and in fact as per the Sketch, the KSRTC bus itself was on the wrong side. The evidence of RW.1-Driver of the KSRTC bus is to the effect that to avoid dashing the ongoing passenger in the auto, he had taken the bus to the extreme right. By considering the evidence of the driver of the bus, it is held that there *can be a rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the KSRTC bus.
Accordingly, these Miscellaneous First Appeals are disposed of.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to MACT.
Sd/- JUDGE DL * Corrected vide court order dated:25.03.2021