—1— IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR M.F.A. CROB NO.807/2010 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.109001/2010 C/w MFA NO.22686/2009(MV) IN MFA CROB NO.807/2010 Mitt. c.vL. MO. JcioOI BETWEEN: ‘F cc4et&d V’ t eJba flJa THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 1 a-tJ at.wa1 KSRTC BIJAPUR, REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, SAREGE SADAN CENTRAL OFFICE GULBARGA. Off jt(COMMON) (BY SRI. C.B. PATIL, ADV.) AND: SHIVANAND, S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA KATFIMANI AGE 46 YEARS, 0CC: SECURITY OFFICER, SADASHIVA SURAGRS LTD., NAINEGALI TQ. BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALOKOT. RESPONDENT(COMMON) ‘ THIS M.F.A. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATEQ 8.7.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.725/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT NO.11 BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF R.1,06,200/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALI SATION. MISC.CVL. NO.109001/2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 5 OF CPC PRAYING TO STAY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.7.2009 PASSED BY THE MEMBER MACT NO.11 BAGLOKOT IN MVC NO.725/2007 AND ALL FURTHER -2- PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTiCE AND EQUiTY. IN MFA NO. 22686/2009 BETWEEN: SHIVANAND, Sb RAMACHANDRAPPA KAflIMANI AGE 45 YEARS, 0CC: SECURiTY OFFICER, SADASHIV SUGARS LTD., NAINEGALI TQ. BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALOKOT. APPELLANT (BY SRi. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV.) AND: THE DIVISTONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC BIJAPUR, RESPONDENT. (RESPONDENT SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMETN AND AWARD 08/07/2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.11 BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATIoN. THIS CROB A/W MISC.CVL.109001/20l0 AND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The respondent-Corporation has preferred cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation. -3- 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original claim petition. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The injuries sustained is not in dispute. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation and thus the claimant has established actionable negligence. Now the dispute •is only regarding compensation awarded towards the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.65,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,200/- towards attendant charges and special diet, Rs.5,000/- towards disfiguration, Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income durng the treatment period, Rs.1O,000/- towards future medical expenditure. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.1,06,200/-. -4- 5. The grievance of the claimant is though doctor-PW-3 has issued disability certificate who has also been examined, has opined that the claimant has sustained permanent disability of 15% to the whole body, no compensation is awarded under the heading of permanent disability. Secondly, it was contended, the award of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. Similarly, the claim under the head of medical expenditure was 1,00,000/- and only a sum of Rs.65,000/- is warded. Therefore, the claimant seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. On the contrary, the Corporation contends, the amount of compensation awarded under various heads is on the higher side and it requires to be reduced. 7. The medical evidence on record discloses, in the accident which took place on 03/06/2007, the claimant sustained injuries of complete avulsion of skin over anterior lateral surface of the whole length of the left leg and left foot exposing torn muscles. He was shifted to Dr. Daddenavar Hospital, Bagalkot, where he underwent 3 operations with the help of Dr. Babu C -5- Bhajantri, skin specialist along with M.S. Daddennavar. Dr. M.S.Daddennavar has been examined as PW-2 in this case. He has spoken to about the treatment given to the petitioner and also the surgery conducted on him. According to him, the patient was discharged on 24/07/2007 after treatment. On 21/10/2008, again, he examined the claimant. He found that the wound is haled but thre4 is an ugly scar over the antero lateral surface of the left leg. He has also deposed that skin from left leg was removed and put to the injured portion by way of plastic surgery. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there is no disability to the petitioner and he can work as he was working. But the leg has become disfigured. This evidence of the doctor runs counter to the evidence of PW- 1 where he has stated that movement of the fingers have become disable and is unable to work. It also contradicts the evidence of PW-3 doctor, who examined the claimant only for the purpose of issuing disability certificate, who has deposed that there is permanent disability of 15%. In the light of this evidence, it is clear, there is no fracture. The injury has been complctely hcalcd. Thcre is only disfiguremcnt and ugly . t -6- scar over the anterior lateral surface of the left leg. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is no permanent disability and the disability certificate cannot be acted upon, cannot be found fault with. It is based on legal evidence. Moreover, the case of the claimant is that he was working as a security officer in a sugar factory. There is nothing to indicate that because of the injury he lost his employment. In other words, notwithstanding injuries, he continues to be in employment and continues to draw earning. Therefore, seen form any angle, the claimant is not entitled to any damages either under the heading of permanent disability or loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding any sum. Insofar as medical expenditure is concerned, Dr. Daddannavar has spoken about the bills issued by the clinic where a sum of Rs.56,000/- was claimed. In addition to that, the claimant has produced the bills showing purchase of medicine. All the bills which are supported by the prescription has been accepted by the Court below and the bills which are not supported by prescriptions are not accepted. In all, it has awarded a sum of -7- Rs.65,000/- . This approach cannot be found fault with. The claim for medical expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper as is clear form the evidence on record it is only a scar, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner in future suffering from any inconvenience and therefore not awarding any amount under the heading loss of amenities is also just and proper. A sum of Rs.l5,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering is also proper. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interferc with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Similarly, the compensation amount awarded is a just compensation and is not excessive as contended by the Corporation. Accordingly, there is no merit in cross-objection. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order: Appeal as well as Cross-objection are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Misc.Cvl.10900l/20l0 for stay also stands dismissed. Sd! 3UDGE kmv