IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4'"! DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE'D<'G.OWDA
Miscellaneous First Agpeai No. 7 A
Between
Gangabyregowda
Aged about 32 Years,
S/0. Late Muddaiah
C / 0. Hanumanthappa
Yeramanchanahalli ~
T. Begur Post, ' A , '
Nelarnangala Taluk. '
A Appellant
(By"s§'~:. V 'Ac'1"*._:r.}.V. A
Anq.» ~~~~ V A
1. VThe4_OV1'ient.a1. VI"nsi'1r,a'1;ce Co. Ltd,
S111. Yethiraj . Ifiuhttee Building,
_ N0.1"99', 2??'---_ M-.'_1in~* 'Road,
A Sampige.__R0ad, Malleshwararn,
;,BAa11.ga,10reD
By it's..Manager.
'{j?';v».(}'0,i*iSha.nka.r H. G.
Major '
S/O." Gangappa H.V.
'' SGF MRS Layout, 7th Cross.
Pipe Line Road, Sunkadakatte
Bangalore -- 91.
Respondents
[By Smt. Harinishivanand, Adv. for R1,
R2 -~ notice dispensed with v/0. dated 16.04.2009)
2
i
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against
the judgement and award dated 20.06.2007 passed in
MVC No.3614/2006 on the file of 1st Additional Judge,
Member, MACT, Bangalore, SCCH–l1, partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and”
enhancement for compensation. ”
This appeal coming on for
the Court, delivered the following; b
Junomefigfl
This appeal is b”y.:”the Hseekingl
enhancement of by the
Tribunal. _ V V _
2. Heard ffhe appea} u; gdgfituxi and xvfih the
consent of :C’o’tr.cn’sel:i,ap:pe–aring for the parties it
is taken
3. Fo1’«-.._tlhe slaker.o’f’0onvenienee parties are referred to
are ref’erre.d’ in the claim petition.
of the case are:
on 30.04.2006 when the claimant was
AA proceeding on his TVS XL bearing registration No.
04 EJ 7647 and waiting on NH 4 near Duciale
Kalyana Mantapa ‘U’ turn on Bangalore ~ Tumkur road
wf.
in order to take a turn, a motorcycle bearing No. KA ()2
ES 7873 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed his TVS XL, as a result he sustainedvVgrievous
injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition
Bangalore seeking compensation of
the Tribunal has awarded
with interest at 6% p.a. l l l A l l
5. As there is no 1 occurrence of
accident, negligencerand Insurer of the
offending vehicle remains for
consideration – I
it ” ‘ = cornffievnsation awarded by
‘;_Ath.e’Tribu:’nal ibs”j.ust and reasonable or does it
eall for e_11l1ancer_r’1’en’t?
6. ~ After Vhiearing” learned Counsel appearing for
., , dc-‘erusing the judgment and award of the
‘V of the View that the compensation
awardhed, the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. it
is is orifthe lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
t V V’ enhanced.
and 180A)..to§’–v§(hi§1:€’_ 113″
7. As per the wound certificate Ex. P 4 claimant has
sustained segment fracture of both the bones of his
right leg. Injuries sustained by him are also her/’ident
from discharge summary document cas”e_
sheet Ex. P 52, X–ray films Ex. 13 53«vmf’;:;f5i6
supported by oral evidence
doctor examined as PWs >1′ and 2=reVspecii\kcEy.,.._ He Was}
treated in Sanjay Gandhi for 13 days.
PW 2 Dr. Prakasl”i«ar)pa’A–_j’i7;_I*ii it ._stated that the
claimant has suffered” right lower limb
8. of injuries the Tribunal
has rightly’ ~ towards pain and
suffering and thereiis no scope for enhancement under
. after scrutinizing the hills produced
by4″t.h:”et c1airnant has rightly awarded Rs.16,000/–
towards medical expenses and there is no scope for
enhancement under this head.
%,
‘5
10. Claimant claims to be an agriculturist, and
therefore, his income is assessed at Rs.3,000/– p.m.
Nature of injuries suggests that he must ha’i%e”»rbeen
under treatment and rest atieast for
months and E award Rs.9,000/– toward~s-.].o’s.sv
during laid up period as against l
the Tribunal.
11. Considering the disablilliity’ statedrby thexldoctor the
Tribunal has rightly4_.awa1.fdedd/–l”toyv’ards loss
of amenities and there enhancement
under this
12. there is 55% disability to the
right 1’cwer l 18.33% to the Whoie body.
Considering “t~h.eV____same functional disability is assessed
‘ ;lat,15_%.. clairnant is 30 years old. The multiplier
his age group is 17. Accordingly future
income works out to Rs.9l,800/– (Rs.3,000/– X
it ‘l5?/0 X 12 X 17} and it is awarded.
fir
13. Considering the nature of injuries the Tribunal has
rightiy awarded Rs.5,000/- towards future medical
expenses and there is no scope for enhancementainder
this head.
14. Thus the ciaimant is enititiedfl ii’
Compensation:
1) Pain and suffering?’ _ Rs; 220,000/–
2) Medical 8; incidental 0′ _
Expenses] V R Rs. 16,000/–
3] loss of income d1.1ri’ng_ ” ._
laid up periodn. ‘ Rs. 9,000/-
I.,oss—of ai.men_i1ties4 ‘ Rs. 20,000/~
5} H offuture income Rs. 91,800/–
6) Future »rriejclrdi’Ca1v”eXpenses Rs. 5,000/-
tttt Rs.1.81.800/-
15. i:tiae””.apV.peal is allowed in part. The
judgnient andaward of the Tribuna} is modified to the
.0 hereinabove. The ciairnant is entitled for
at2at-.,tot’ai”.”_’»d-conihensation of Rs.1,81,800/– as against
— awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
it on the enhanced compensation of Rs.99,800/-
“”§(Rupees Ninety nine thousand and eight hundred only)