[=9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE DEEPAK A.
AND
THE H()N'BLE MR.Jus'l'iCE;KT F;A§«45N?5A M *'
MFA Na..»§_.§5:3g:éc0_§ V
BETWEEN:
T K Katrappa V
S/o Sccnappa
51 YTS, r/0 Main Road ;
Doddabudihal _ '
Davafiszgéif: ' h Appellant
' ' ()t»mé,r"c2f.?i'ractor/Trailer
' R] e«f'_KnTnchur Post, Hampanahalli Taluk
District.
The Manager
~ National Insurance Co.Ltd
Main Road, Parvathi Nagar
Above 'E'VS--Suzuki Show room
Benary Respondents
(By Sri Arun Ponnappa, Adv for R-2; notice to R-1
dispcgfxflmcd With}
This appeal is filed under Section. ..
Vehicles Act against the judgxnmsafiand 'd4a1nd_:'7-4»
2004 passed in MVC 510.136/23903 ..0nf. the" Gf'-.lth€?:U
Addlcivil Judge (swan) as AMACT-}v,'~' l)avsa_nagem"
allowing the claim petition fa-r and ,
enhancement of czompenaatiozy 4' " ~.. _
This appeal bccn_.hl§$.'Ii" orders,
coming on for pmno13::;cexr_.icn_tVA "«<1.ay, RAMANNA d.,
delivered the following: ~ 1
This? llisl: the judgment and
'isyfina ll Add_l.C.ivil Judge and
MA(fI':-3'," l we 1310.136/2003 (old
130.109/100$) of inadequacy of compensation.
of the case: of the appellant is that,
' at about 1.00 pm. when he was proceeding
H with his nephew towards Davanagcxt:
.V 01:3}; u Unsicldappa, driwr of tractoptraiior bearing
ll mgigniifban Nt3.KAl--35--1l23~24 was coming' towards
l tic v1Ilag' c at lug' 1:: speed and in a rash and ncg1@' t
and dashed aamst the moped. Consequently,
appellant sustained fractures over his hands, legs and also
sustained other injurias. Therefore, Davanag¢12:V'V"l5ijafi:'%¢
Police mgsmrcd a casc in crime No.229/2001 fig
said driver of tractor-trailor for cifEénca*s_ b
Section 279, 337' IPC and Section Visa?-{if '1§.I§o'c§;'v:,_.-. A
After the accident, ..was Ev?'«apuji
hospital. Davanagcmv ;'w}.1c1'c'.. ~ L.3;':nda'::z9goz1cA"
both as inpatient and his natun: of
avocation the Tribunal
awarded Rsfwith intnrcst at 8%:
p.a. fiénn date of payment. The
appc11.a'1 fl_ I:10t' with thc quantum of
has come up with this appeal,
.
V’ ‘V heard learned counsel for appellant as wail
a’§§’~-I”:CS1’v3.CriI3′(‘fl’CE’£ilAVtV” 1 .
” <$ 3'Admit1ed1y, the appellant her-sin is a victim of mad
accident whih: procccding on his mopw with his
jicphcw on 13-11-3002. The tractor as trolley bckznggs to
respondcnt–I. and insured with rczspondcntfl. There is no
/) /V,
Right foot — no radiolofical abnormalittfj '2
Right leg with ankk: —- fracture of xqxégr' e:;.3~4j'o5ee
right fibula. Chip fracture of _ '
of right fibula.
The evidence of P.W.1
corroborated to some extent by ;
There was fracture of radius and
of 1/ 3″‘ of efclier ianjmies.
Considering the by appellant
and B”l1II3.1I3CT3′.v(‘)’i;”::I:_$i.§\¥,s. fqf =i “v_r;xicrgone by he}: as
we are of the opm’ mm’
that % awarded compensation of
Rs.5O.0’Of}’;’.: %1sn£ViVerf ‘mm 6:. sufiefings’. Therefore,
there 319 the same. However amount
‘ the head loss of amenities is enhanced to
z to appellant he has spent Rs.35,00{)[– to
V ~ inwards mfiical expenses,» but he was ab}: to
bills as Ex.P~ 10 to P-43? onty for a meager sum of
” 1?s.1-4,242.51/– and Tribunal has awaxtied the same amount
under the head ‘medical expenses’ but Txibunal has failed to
/,
E,_-
531/,
4″
consider that, it will not always possible to
for all expenses and that there will mfi A u ‘
for which no bills can be obta5;i3,cd:;’_’_A
R.-$25,000/- unticr this tn’ ‘ L»
Rs.10,0()()/- under head .IiG1l!_’iSh::§{nCfit and
attendant charges’. V A “H ‘4 V V
8. As on tl_1c was aged
about 50 by pmfiassion and
also ims’mcss and caxning
to produce any documents to
pmvc any witnesses to pmvc number
of Qwiied ncgr examined any rcsponsfilc person
. V. of to he was supplying miik. In the
such m.afcna’ is , Tribunal has taken his
iI1A(2.f,’fvII!.C ~a1’_- per day to assess has of income.
H(3WC€?€IT T1’ibufl3I erred in awarding compensation only for
V-Aj”1″;z8,_’.€i53Y5s wherein he was ‘mpaticnt in the hospital, but it
to consider that cum afinr discharge from the hospital
the appellant had to take bed msffaflcast for 2 months and
hc had to suficr loss of earnings for the same. Thcmfpit WC
award Rs.9,000/– under the lmd ‘loss of
treatment period’.
Ex.P7/disability ccrtificair, appé31aI;.=§f:TA~:§ufi’crS
disabiiity of pamc’ ular 1imr;:§_ T1;c ‘i”ribiu:a.a_1 *
issue in para 1 3(a) of __it’s appellant
suffers 5″/ia disability/V towards
loss of fixture the number of
fractnijljtts snsiaincd and looking at Ex.P.7
disahiliiy:_ ” 1-,~51§j,* of the opinion that appellant
suficxs ugholc body. Accordingly, appellant is
” 1;; ~ of Rs.30,24()/~ under the sa1d’
them is an arithmc@a1′ error while
amount under this head by the Tribunal
not been brought to the noiioc of’I’ribuna} by both
The Tribunal insirad of computing than figures
% x 12 x 5/100 as Rs.21,600/- has wrongly computed
it as Rs.39,600/-. However, in View of the aforesaid
z!
/5?
discussions, the appellant would bc cntitlggcf
Rs.30,2-=1{)/- under the said head. In an,
entitled to compensation of Rs.1,4€§i,}’240,’«-¢_. .< T 9
10. Accordingly for the
aiiawcd in part. Judgment ‘ s
Txibunal is modified. Aggpcllazii’ 2-Egfititicd :5 ‘R–s.1;%4,24o /-
with interest at 8% fiétition till thc date:
of payment. \of the vehicle is
liablc to p§Ly’:ifi1?fi3’13;?1 within four weeks.
Amouigt :’d.cpcp§it¢d- if any, stands adjusted,
Respon<i::t:1't~~2 'is «V pay costs through out and
advc}ca?:;'s f4$c-of:Rs;.2,C?0().;/- is fixed ifocrtified.
….. .' la
Sd/-i
Judge
Sd/-
Judge
.. is?