RATNAKAR MUTTAYYA SHETTY Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Ratnakar M. Shetty, suffered grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 7.11.2010 while he was riding the motor cycle with one Narayana Maruthi, Pillion rider. The driver of the NWKRTC bus, while trying to over take the motor cycle dashed to the back side of the on going motor cycle of Mr. Ratnakar. Consequent upon which, Mr. Ratnakar fell down and suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,54,000/ - in total, under various heads.

(2.) MFA No. 20077/2013 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, whereas MFA. CROB No. 774/2013 is filed by the NWKRTC for reduction of compensation.

(3.) THE claimant is treated by PW 3, the doctor at SDM Medical College Hospital, Dharwad. He has deposed that claimant has sustained fracture of pelvis bone both vertically and horizontally. There was a comminuted fracture of half of sacrum; fracture of vertebra; undisplaced fracture of spinous process D6; Left transverse process L1 & L2; Urinary bladder was completely ruptured and Urethra was fully ruptured and damaged. He had also suffered minimal pneumothorax. He was subjected to operation. The abdomen of the victim was containing large quantity of blood and consequently, the abdomen was operated. Blood had flown from pelvic region in as much as pelvic bone was fractured. The blood was oozing from prostrate part also. The Urethra was found 20 c.m. away from the place in which it was supposed to be. By virtue of operation, the urinary bladder was cured. However, the urethra of the claimant was not cured at all. Cathedra was used for draining out urine through abdomen. Another drain was kept in pelvic region though he was inpatient for more than eight days at SDM Hospital. He was not completely cured. Since he was seriously injured, he himself requested to shift to another hospital and consequently, he has taken treatment at KLE Hospital, Belgaum. Later, the very doctor PW 3, who treated the victim has opined that the injuries caused to the claimant might lead to impotency.