Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2012 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.33422 OF 2011)  

VENKATESH  APPELLANT

                VERSUS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C.  RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The  claimant  is  aggrieved  by  the  quantum  of  

compensation.

3. According to the appellant, he suffered injury in a  

motor accident  and fractured his leg.  He filed an application  

for  grant  of  compensation  and  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  

Tribunal, by its award dated 06.06.2005, granted a compensation  

of  Rs.50,000/-  with  costs  and  interest  @  7%  p.a.  from  19th  

March,  2004.   The  claimant,  aggrieved  by  the  quantum  of  

compensation, preferred an appeal, which had been dismissed by  

the impugned judgment and order.

4. In paragraph 4 of the judgment and order, the High  

Court has observed that the appellant has lost his vision in  

the left eye and on that premise it proceeded to hold that the  

claimant is entitled for Rs.1 lacs under the head “loss of eye”  

and  has  further  awarded  various  amounts  under  different  

headings.  However, ultimately, the High Court had dismissed  

the appeal.

Page 2

: 2 :

5. It  is  a  common  ground  that  the  appellant  has  not  

suffered any loss of vision and in fact he had fractured his  

leg.  

6. It seems that the High Court has mis-directed itself  

and proceeded to consider the case of the appellant on the  

premise that he has lost his eye. Further, the High Court has  

observed that the appellant shall be entitled to various other  

amounts.  None  the  less,  ultimately,  it  had  dismissed  the  

appeal.  It seems that the facts of two different cases have  

been mixed up.    

7. In that view of the matter, the order of the High  

Court cannot be allowed to stand.   

8. As  the  High  Court  has  proceeded  on  an  erroneous  

premise, we deem it expedient that it decides the case afresh  

in accordance with law.  

9. Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

judgment and order of the High Court and remit the matter back  

to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law. No  

costs.

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 26, 2012