Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Appeal is allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Judgment
Miscellaneous First Appeal 7589 / 2011 (MV) Between: Sri Kantharaja Kavi, 40 yrs S/o Rudramuni Kavi Owner of Nandi Earth Movers R/a Donigal Village, Kasaba Hobli Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan (By M/s Law Inc, Adv.) And: 1 2 Sri Siddesha S/o Manjegowda 29 yrs, KSRTC Bus Driver Sakaleshpura Depot, Hassan Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikmagalur Dvn Chikmagalur (By Sri D Vijayakumar, Adv. For R2) Appellant Respondents First Appeal is filed under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to modify the award dated 28.10.2010 in MVC 1466/2008 by the 2 Addl. MACT, Hassan. First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT Appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Addl. MACT, Hassan in MVC 1466/2008 on
Operative part
28.10.2010. On 3.4.2008, around 2.50 p.m. when the claimant along with his friend was riding TVS Victor bearing No.KA 46 E 2121 near Hanubalu Hobli, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 13 F 1169 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant due to which claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. In the claim petition filed, Tribunal having held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,800/- on the following heads:: Medical Expenses Rs.23,000/- Pain & suffering Rs.30,000/- Loss of future earnings Rs.64,800/- Loss of amenities Rs.15,000/- Conveyance & Nourishment Rs.5,000/- Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.3,000/- 3 Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant is before this Court. Heard the counsel representing the parties. Claimant has sustained swelling and abrasion over the right wrist and tenderness over the right knee and cut wound on the right frontal region. As per the claimant, he was treated at Tejaswini Hospital and Crawford Hospital. The disability is assessed at 15% to the upper limb and 21% to the right lower limb. The disability is taken at 12% to the whole body by the Tribunal and has awarded Rs.64,000/- by taking income at Rs.13,000/-. According to the learned counsel, appellant is an income tax payee and income has to be taken on the higher side and he is the proprietor of Earth Movers. 4 On the head loss of future earning, claimant would not be entitled for any enhancement much less, any award on that head. Be that as it may, claimant could be awarded another Rs.10,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest from the date of petition till deposit which would be towards pain and suffering and also towards loss of amenities. Insurer to deposit the amount in three months. Appeal is allowed in part. An Sd/- Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.