KALAMMA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsels for respective parties it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the common impugned judgment and award dated 27.6.2008 passed in MVC. No. 101/2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Channarayapatna seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the personal injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that took place on 3.4.2005 on B.M. road near Hirisave involving the KSRTC bus hearing Regn.No.KA-13-F-1204 driven by its driver owned by the respondent-Corporation at the relevant point of time. In the impugned accident she sustained severe injuries for which she took treatment in the hospital by spending huge money. Despite the same, she is not completely cured of her injuries, due to which, she is unable to carry on her avocation which has resulted in loss of income to her. Hence, she prayed for grant of compensation. After notice, the respondent appeared and contested the claim of the claimant. It was contended that the impugned accident has not taken place on account of the fault of the driver of the bus, on the other hand, it took place due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw in which the claimant and the co-claimant were proceeding. They also denied all other averments made in the claim petition and contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation accordingly, sought for dismissal of the same. The tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident has taken place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver owned by the respondent Corporation and accordingly, the claimant has established actionable negligence. Further, the Tribunal looking to the evidence of the claimants and the documents placed on record awarded a total compensation of 32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation under various heads. It further saddled the payment of compensation on the respondent-Corporation. The appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation is in appeal before this Court.

(3.) TAKING the rival submissions into consideration and the papers that are made available, the point that arises for my consideration is: 'Whether the appellant-claimant has made out a case for enhancement?'