High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 KAR CK 0199

The Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Sarige Sadan Gulbarga vs Seeta @ Seethabai

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 10 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Misc. First Appeal No. 30937 of 2012 (MV)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 519 words

D.V. Shylendra Kumar

1.

Appeal by the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation complaining that the compensation quantified in favor of the respondent-passenger in the bus due to the injuries she suffered when the radiator of the bus burst at a sum of Rs. 3,18,550/- as per the judgment dated 26th December 2011 passed in MVC No. 838 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Gulbarga is on the higher side and that it is required to be scaled down. There is a delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal. Notice had been issued to respondent and respondent has entered appearance through his counsel Sri. Bapugowda Siddappa, Advocate appearing on behalf of Amaresh S. Rawoor.

2.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

3.

Delay is condoned. I.A. 1/2012 is allowed.

4.

However Sri. Bapugowda Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that IA3/12 filed by the claimant which is one for withdrawal of amount may be ordered.

5.

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties on merits of the matter, the appeal is disposed of as under:

The accident resulted in injury and giving rise to the claim petition are all not in dispute. Two areas of dispute which are highlighted and based on which Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company contends that the award is on the higher side are [1] that allowing medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,86,100/- is on the higher side and [2] there was no occasion to provide for loss of future income at Rs. 58,200/-.

6.

On the other hand Sri. Bapugowda Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as defended this quantification and in fact, it is on conservative side.

7.

The Tribunal had quantified the amount as under:

1.

Pain, shock and suffering

: Rs. 25,000/-

2.

Loss of amenities of life

: Rs. 10,000/-

3.

Loss of income during the Laid-up period

: Rs. 20,000/-

4.

Attendant�s charges Extra Nourishment and Conveyance

: Rs. 19,250/-

5.

Medical Expenses

: Rs. 1,86,100/-

6.

Loss of future income

Total

: Rs. 58,200/-

: Rs. 3,18,550/-

This amount with 6% interest was to be paid to the claimant.

8.

The medical expenses are for the treatment claimant had received at Raghavendra Nursing Home, Hyderabad for a duration of five months. The Learned Judge of the Tribunal was satisfied about the same. There is no occasion to interfere with the award in respect of actual medical expenses. Insofar as the arguments relating to the award of future loss of income is not justified is concerned, I notice that on perusal of the Judgment, it is indicated that the claimant had suffered extensive injuries on her face and the treatment was prolonged for a period of five months. Injuries on the face, of any lady is undoubtedly a permanent disability and a sum of Rs. 58,200/- has been quantified under this head. I do not find this amount excessive. I do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore appeal of the Corporation is dismissed.