High Court Karnataka High Court

Gary Ingatius S/O T I Ignatius vs Asha J Balakrishna W/O Jawahar … on 12 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gary Ingatius S/O T I Ignatius vs Asha J Balakrishna W/O Jawahar … on 12 November, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna


9:22″ . .

in THE HIGH covm” 01:’ KARNATMCA AT _V

_B___E’1_E1__II’3_!’3..1.’§_=

DATED nus THE 1211! DAY 01:’ NOVEMBER;;”§2~fi(}gB’..:

PRESENT

THE HoN’m.E MR.JUSPIC£§’DI*3::I:§Pif«K .. ‘V ,

AM’.

THE H()N’BLE MR.JU’:fif1cE K

.%E§;!§9m5;w.L–7?A

Gary€Ing:,fli11§”‘–V._ b V.

24 yrs;..¢s)’r>1’$n.I.l;;,1za¥;iiz$s«– _

ridfifl, Avficadefifly ‘ ‘

Hear Batik M I

‘5 535119 ” .\

udupi Dist2’._ict.~ _ ”

Appefiant
% . gay’ sgf xBig)in Hcvgéc 85 Surcsh M R, Advs.)

i3a1a~flmsV ‘ lma
Baiakrishna

R[<1~ 93–~–B, Sanaathi

Hk2sui'Cattlc farm

Math1gr1,' ' ' Hosur

: '_ Tamilnadu State

L K K Abdul Mcssiah

S/0 Rcv.K.K Aiavi
R[o Biaharah Manzil
Mazljcri – 676121

Kcrala State

3 The Ori-mtal Insurance Co.Ltd

25-c, Arunagjri complex

3*" floor, Bycqa-ass romi

Hosu:r–635 109

Rep byits nemcst 01339: f ®_
Biviaional Manager _ ' 'iRt:2a_pcu;{:i¢itgts 7

(By Sri S.V.Hcgdc Mummmi, Adv.'fnf'f2-A'3;'=–¢
R-2 saved; Nofi;nc"*$p= R-A1»

This appeal is mad sgcaon' «173(1}i=of Mv Act
against the judgxacnt ziatc%1._12»7»f200'4 passed in
MVC No.787[2000 on-_th¢ fikgcf Judge (Sr.I)x1) as
Add1.MACT, Uclupi partly' 'Lac. mm petition for
compensation and §:nI1anocn1"cnt" bompcnsation.

, md reserved ibr orders,
on' 'fs2;*_¢_pmz1t§31an.g:e1a:x§:t3t this day, RAMANNA .3.,
delivemd' the V " _.

‘gj;’DaMEnT

” «filed by the appellant-claimant under

‘ of Motor Vehicles Act, smking t

H awardcd by Prl.Civil Judge [Sr Dvn] mad

Axiiil, Udupi in MVC No.78?/2000 dated 12-7-2004

“Wh(:r(:v{;i’ndcr the ‘I’ribunal awarded compensation of

i§’s;?:42,800/- with intcmst at 8%: p.a. from the date of

‘ pctitioa ti}! realization.

;.–‘

M”;

E?

‘=.’-.» .

L./–»~

2. The case of the appellant herein is that,

1999 at about 2.30 pm. ha and his friend were mtg’ V’

Maruti Omm’ bcaimg registration No.

belonging to the fir.-at ztspondcnt.

Mathigiri and whik: mmming to tt 1e:_ awe, ”

being a driver of the said ficax
Vcnkatcswara Hamhmics.%VLQua:t¢x~g’V§gi§g “without
taking proper care, all the road
from right to xgfijgsdc; cgg::§ the mad,
rcsP0IIdcntf2′ tit} left side to save
the cow, bufhe vehicle and dashed
against nsilcstffintg on’ lcft side of the
gicvaus irzjurics and
chopped 011′ in the accident.
treatment at Stdohns Medical

T’ Afigwpétal. between 7-6-3999 m 10-54.999.

_ flex xf shrficd’ to KMC hoapiml, Mampal’ on
account of the mcidcnt, his r?1g;ht car bone

and oonscqucnfly it lad to deformity. Therefore he

‘is:

x,’ ;…., __J__,

5/1.

” 5′

am a claim petition bctbm the mm. The

Judge after considering the matcrials _

alkrwcd the claim petition in part awaztling ‘

Rs.-42.800/–. Being not _:1ic_

compensation awarded, the avpTp91.Ia’11t”—::.lV’a”;~’:1£:1:=2nt: *’

with this appeal sacking
mainly on the gonad into
oonsiicration about and loss of
vision on also less of car
bong. ‘ he has to undergo
r<:constructio£:._'of has to incur huge
amount, so = operations. But thc
angqgnt byV is too km. Hence, sought
1'0; icmgpcnsation.

of lcarnfi counsel for both

We scrutinized the judgmcnt and

the course of arguments, lcarned counsel

oonflcndcd that appcllmt had sustamcd’

.. E93-//””‘

i

injuzim which an-: gnicvous in natum, but only

sun: of Rs. 10,000] — has been awanicd under tin: _

and sufitring’. So also, thc amount ”

heads is too low. It is furthcr

appellant sufibmd disability of to
limb. the Tribunal has .amo¥ii:{t ;cgaming
loss of functional Hence:

prayed for    ..   me
eompcnsaiifiii      V

can the learned oounscl for
11′.-spo1::d4.=’:«I1t+–:_{‘_’3 Jfhtrc is dispute with regard to
by the appellant and :=>.w.2 cxmnined

‘V :bj*4fi1C has dcposcd that appellant has to undergo

I cach time he has to spend Rs.30,0t)0/-

oqnsafiififion fix: of Rs..'{,500/- which is totally

Z Admissions made by P.W.2 clearly indicates that

A can undergo xtoonstxuctzb 1:: of right car house in

_,Ix.{dia for which he fiwd not go to Sweden as sought by the

/?.r’:

..«r”‘””‘

claimant. On account of the injuries

may be getting head achc, but the same

by undergoing laser opcxations, th’ii§Vii’ tzanlsiot;

he could not pursue his studies. no».lq3§.sAS of r

camings as the appellant a.”s’tv;d¢:zllt_L_; ‘V

Tribunal has otal and
documcmmy evidence ° and awanilcd
eempensation.” at the rate
of 8% p.a.€. ought to haw:

awardcfi he prays for
t l

6. of hemmed counsel for

boa; tix::_V_lqt:r:st::inn that arises for consideration is

awarded by the Tribunal under

I just and proper ? If not to what

the appellant is entitled to ?

AA as on the data’: of accident, appellant ~

A tttlldytmg in II year B.D.S. Due to the accident met by

on 7–6«-1999 while havcllixzg in Marutri Omni, he

suflhmd injuries as statjw in the wound

27. Then: is no disputac with regard to bi’: _

which by n:spondcnt~2 . The 6:;

that appellant’s left ear bone was ct.;t.__ L

disputed oral and
with mgard to pcrccntagghof ‘noi:’i;i:1g was
placed on rcoord by the evidence
of P.Ws. I85 2. fIfh§ : appq:;i-fit of about 19
years sufl’cp:x£i” -pf has susminod
pcrmaacn: his vision. It is
very on account of his
disfiguration. of injuries suficmd by
appcnant, are View that Tribunaj has
undééscvcral heads which requires to

8. A’1’Z!\1c awarded umicr the head of ‘medical

if “$’3’»*’?5,’r Pain” and snficrillgs’ has to bc treated as

but the Tribunal ought to have mm mm

future medical expenses which appcllant has

!x

r 2

to incur i.c., Contact lens, which the appcaant mg-.%’%

because of M53 of Thcxttfiorc, we L” K

proper to award a sum of

of mm’ ‘ 11’. As for as plastic suxfgcry Aug. ” hf ~_

concemcd, he has to spend ‘V V

evidence of P.W’.2, it jfist to .33 sum of
Rs.60,000/- under the cxpcnscs’ apaft
rmém the under the
said “lF?.§V’Ev7’A’F’;§/the Doctor has
opined piasfric surgcry,

-‘to exist on his fiam. Of
course, Rs.10,000/- under fhc head
‘disfiginafiofi; be enhanced by another sum of

the facts and circumsfmzccs,

to be awarded under that head ‘loss of

mficnifiqs’; a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of

Thus, in all the: appellant is cntiticd to

compensation ofRs.l,S0,009/-.

9. Accordingly appca} is alloww. _
award passed by the Tribunal is modified –. V’ 9»
is eatiflcd to enhanced Z
interest at 6% p.a. from flmfgjam
The insurer aha}! deposit the V
wihin four weeks. The mam;
adjusted. Rcspmdcjts to
out. The advocaws

¥\

Sd/…

Judge

35/1
.Tudg3

Q’