VENKATESH R. Vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KSRTC
Bench: CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-008468-008468 / 2012
Diary number: 32148 / 2011
Advocates: ANJANA CHANDRASHEKAR Vs
S. N. BHAT
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