AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J—Claimant in MVC. No. 353/2003 on the file of MACT, Sira, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 22.2.2012 so far as it pertains to quantum of compensation awarded to him for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident dated 16.9.1997.
Brief facts leading to this second miscellaneous second appeal are as under:
Claimant in MVC. No. 353/2003, a conductor in KSRTC bus met with an accident on 16.9.1997 while he was discharging his duty as conductor in bus bearing registration No. KA-O1/F. 6252, which was proceeding from Bengaluru to Hubli. It is stated that when said bus was near Kadahalli cross on Bengaluru - Hubli road, about 10 kms., away from Shiggaon, the bus met with an accident resulting in injuries to claimant as stated in Ex. P5 issued by KMC Hospital, Hubli, which reads as under:
Tenderness over the lumbar spine is present.
Movements of the lumbar spine are painfully restricted.
Tenderness over the left hip rejoins and
Painful restriction of the left hip joint.
The back portion of Ex. P5 would indicate that four x-rays were taken with reference to each of the injury where tenderness was found and it was observed that no fracture is found with reference to injury received by claimant to any particular limb. Thereafter, it is seen that claim petition is filed by him on 16.5.2003 i.e., nearly after 6 1/2 years from the date of accident contending that in aforesaid accident claimant has suffered serious injuries with reference to which he had to take treatment in KMC Hospital, Hubli, General Hospital, Tumkur, K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bengaluru and also got examined at Medical Board, KSRTC, Bengaluru. It is stated that he was inpatient in various hospitals for about three years, he is still taking treatment as outpatient as on the date of filing of claim petition and towards treatment he has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e., for x-ray charges, operation charges, lab charges, OT charges, nursing charges, medicine, other incidental charges and for advice of doctors. Hence, he has filed claim petition seeking compensation from KSRTC, for the reason that aforesaid treatment are for the injuries suffered in the accident dated 16.9.1997.
The said claim petition was contested by respondent KSRTC by filing written statement, wherein the pleadings in claim petition were completely denied and claim was also sought to be rejected. Thereafter, the tribunal proceeded to frame issues. After framing of issues, claimant has adduced evidence as PW. 1 and he has also examined a doctor by name Dr. K.V. Venkatesh Babu, who is said to be the doctor, who treated claimant from 3.2.2007 as PW. 2. PW. 2 has adduced evidence in support of claimant''s case stating that due to injuries suffered as stated in Ex. P5, claimant is undergoing spondylotic changes in the lumbar spine, osteoarthritic changes in the hip joints and osteoarthitic changes in the left sacroiliac joint, which opinion was given by him after looking into the recent x-ray, which was taken in the year 2007. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that PW. 2 - doctor has given evidence on 23.2.2007. As admitted by him, he has seen the claimant for the first time on 3.2.2007. Therefore, the opinion of said doctor is based on tests conducted on that day and also based on the submissions made to him by claimant at the time of his medical check-up on 3.2.2007.
In the claim proceedings initially in all 22 documents were produced and marked as Exs. P1 to P22 in support of claimant''s case. However, on behalf of respondent - KSRTC no evidence is adduced except subjecting the claimant and PW. 2 to cross-examination. Based on said evidence, the tribunal has proceeded to allow the claim petition by judgment dated 28.3.2007 awarding compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs. 1,86,598/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of deposit of entire amount. The said judgment and award was subject matter of an appeal in MFA. No. 12807/2007 c/w. MFA. Crob. 154/2008 i.e., appeal was filed by KSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by tribunal and cross objection was filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
It is seen that both appeal and cross objection were taken up for consideration, wherein the contention urged by KSRTC in appeal is that accident dated 16.9.1997 did not cause any disability to claimant except four blunt injuries as stated in Ex. P5 with reference to which x-rays were taken immediately thereafter and none of the injuries were considered to the effect that claimant has suffered any fracture to any of the injured part of body. It was further contended that claim petition is filed 6 1/2 years after the accident and treatment, which is said to have taken by claimant in all hospitals other than KMC hospital, is with reference to Bronchitis problem of claimant, which is not due to injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, entire claim petition is without any basis and awarding compensation to claimant is a serious error on the part of tribunal. It is seen that said appeal and cross objection were disposed of by common judgment, wherein coordinate bench of this Court set aside the judgment and award passed by tribunal, consequently, dismissed the cross objection and referred the matter to tribunal for reconsideration.
In the remanded matter, after hearing the learned counsel for claimant and respondent - KSRTC the tribunal independently passed the judgment subsequently on 22.2.2012, wherein the compensation reassessed by tribunal was in a sum of Rs. 36,070/- payable with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till date of payment of entire amount. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant in MVC. No. 355/2003 has come up in this appeal for the second time with reference to same claim petition.
Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as contesting respondent, perused the grounds of appeal with reference to finding of tribunal in judgment and award dated 22.2.2012 and also pleadings and oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that the finding of tribunal which is rendered for the second time by judgment impugned is just and proper for the following reasons;
Admittedly, claimant was working as conductor as on 16.9.1997 with KSRTC. It is not in dispute that on the ill-fated day he was travelling in bus bearing registration No. KA-01/F. 6252 from Bengaluru to Hubli and at about 3.30 pm., the said bus met with an accident near Kadahalli cross, which is about 10 kms., away from Shiggaon town and located on Bengaluru - Hubli highway. The said accident is not in dispute. So also presence of claimant as conductor in said bus. The record would disclose that immediately after accident claimant was taken to KMC Hospital Hubli, where Ex. P5 - wound certificate is issued referring to four blunt injures suffered by claimant. Admittedly, in none of the injuries there is any fracture or serious injury, which would also indicate that it has got anything to do with bronchitis, which is developed subsequently by claimant, for which he has taken treatment in several hospitals at Bengaluru and other places. It is further not in dispute that immediately after accident and immediately after getting himself treated for aforesaid injuries, claimant did not file claim petition seeking compensation. He waited for nearly 6 1/2 years and it is in the month of September 2003 for the first time he decided that he should file a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries said to have suffered by him in an accident taken place about 6 1/2 years before filing the claim petition.
In the said claim petition he has stated all the ailments that he has suffered for whatever reason from 1997 till date of filing of claim petition. As could be seen from the record, his major problem is bronchitis, which cannot be linked to the injuries suffered in road traffic accident dated 16.9.1997, which is the cause for initiating present proceedings seeking compensation. When said bronchitis could not be linked to accident dated 16.9.1997, how tribunal took that into consideration and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- and odd does not stand to reason. In that view of the matter, coordinate bench of this court rightly set aside the judgment and award in an appeal filed by KSRTC in MFA No. 12807/2007. While doing so, dismissed the cross objection, which was filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and rightly remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to tribunal to consider only that portion of injury, which claimant has suffered in the road traffic accident dated 16.9.1997. As could be seen from the judgment impugned, the tribunal has stuck to its agenda; has seen only those documents, which are relevant for the injuries suffered in road traffic accident dated 16.9.2009 and reassessed the compensation payable to claimant rightly in a sum of Rs. 36,070/. While doing so, the tribunal refused to accept hospitalization and various other documents, which are with reference to bronchitis problem that claimant is suffering and held that, that it has got nothing to do with accident dated 16.9.1997.
On going through the judgment impugned, it is seen that the tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and rightly awarded just and proper compensation payable to claimant for the injuries suffered in road traffic accident dated 16.9.1997 and all other pleadings and evidence which has no nexus to that is eschewed and not considered for awarding compensation. Therefore, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this appeal to consider enhancement of compensation payable for the alleged injuries suffered by claimant in the road traffic accident dated 16.9.1997. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.