GANAPATRAO Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the claimant's appeal for enhancement against the impugned Judgment and Award dated : 24.4.2014 made in M.V.C.No.908/2012 on the file of M.A.C.T. Bijapur, awarding compensation of Rs.2,33,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition to till its realization.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant that on 25-1-2012 at about 5-00 p.m., near Basaveshwar Circle in Indi, when he alighted from the Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-28-F-1118 and was standing near by it, at that time, driver of the said bus suddenly moved the bus and the bus ran over the left leg of the claimant, resulting in the accident. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained fractural injuries and other injuries as noted at col.no.11 of the claim petition. Immediately, he was shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Solapur, there he was treated as indoor patient and was discharged on 25.2.2012. Second time he was admitted in the said hospital from 80-3-2012 to 18-3-2012 and third time he was admitted on 27-3-2012 and spent Rs.3.00 lakhs towards medical expenses. The claimant sustained crush injury to foot with contamination with dorsal wound on foot with degloving of skin plantar and dorsal and fracture metatarsals 1, 2, 3, 4 with dislocation of 5th metatarsal bass and thereafter his left leg was amputated. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No.KA-28-F-1118. Prior to the accident, claimant was doing agriculture work having irrigated lands and he used to grow sugarcane and sunflower crops and thereby getting income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the said accidental injuries, he is unable to do any work and became permanently disabled and caused dis-figuration. Hence prays for compensation.

(3.) The respondent appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant and alleged accident. The respondent has taken specific contention that the claim made at col.no.1 to 21 of the petition is false and baseless. The claim of Rs.15.00 lakhs made under conventional heads is exorbitant and baseless and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation etc., and prays for dismissal of the claim petition.