Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2116 (KAR)

Managing Director Nwkrtc - Hubli v. Ayub

2020-10-22

V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, who appeared through video conference. 2. Despite granting sufficient time, appellant is unable to trace correct address of the respondent. 3. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole respondent has vacated his house at Belgaum and his whereabouts are not known. She further submits that even in the absence of sole respondent, appeal may be heard and disposed of as the appeal is only with regard to grant of interest @ 8% p.a., which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. In view of the same, the matter is heard on merits. 5. Before the tribunal, a claim petition filed under Section 163A of M.V. Act contending that on 12.01.2011 at about 8.45 a.m., when the sole respondent was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-22-J-1852 from Hari Mandir towards Vidya Nagar in Belgaum. When he reached second cross circle at Belgaum, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-1199 came from CBT bus stop proceeding towards Gadgil bus stop in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and as such, he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained fracture of clavicle bone, left knee and other multiple injuries to all over the body and filed claim petition seeking compensation. 6. In response to the summons issued by the tribunal, KSRTC appeared denying the petition averments. 7. On the basis of rival contentions urged by the parties, tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries which occurred on 12.01.2011 at 8.45 p.m. at Bhagya Nagar due to use and involvement of NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA-01/F-1199 and motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/J- 1852? 2. What is the just of reasonable compensation amount, which the petitioner is entitled for ? 3. What order or award? 8. In order to prove the case, claimant himself got examined as PW1 and doctor got examined as PW2 and marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12. On behalf of KSRTC one Santosh K. Patil got examined as RW1. 9. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation at Rs.85,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. 10. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 11. On behalf of KSRTC one Santosh K. Patil got examined as RW1. 9. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation at Rs.85,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. 10. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that grant of interest @ 8% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. This court perused the papers and heard Smt. Veena Hegde. 12. In view of the rival contention urged by the parties, the sole point that would arise for consideration are : Whether the grant of interest @ 8% p.a. by the tribunal is higher side? 13. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following : REASONS 14. Admittedly the petition is under Section 163A of M.V. Act. There was no necessity for the tribunal to hold a detailed trial. Nevertheless, the tribunal held trial and has come to the conclusion awarding compensation at Rs.85,000/- with interest 8% p.a. 15. Having regard to prevalent bank rates of interest at the relevant point of time, grant of 8% p.a. is perfectly justifiable. 16. No other point is urged in this appeal. Accordingly, point is answered in the negative and following order is passed: ORDER Appeal is merit less and hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit, be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement.