THE HON'BLE MR.JUV§3T1CEV f %
M.F.A. No. 3462 ggoos
SIDDAMMA' aamareammma kk
AGED sekvmask , t
w_1o mrEH%ucra%mAH%% L '
R]O. KONASAIQDRA ' "
'
H-I§.RO_HALL§' VHQBLL..MKAVNAKAPURA TALUK
BA;'V'~EGP.LGI?.'EV D;EA$¥l'R!CT "
M * APPELLANT
;(B3'_'531'i GNMALLAIAH 85 M N SUMANGALA DEVI. ADV)
' _----u-.---- ~
' é'l'fHEI= (5.RlENTAL msu. co. LTD.
. . C394}. N9 1 1 1 r-n1muAnn.u'|' gang
1.
‘ .I., \.aI\Jl1l1-II\.!\all.Il 1.11:
% QUEENS ROAD (moss
fl BANGALGRE-52
BY ITS MANAGER
AL “2 NARASIMHAIAH
MAJOR
age AN-._l.A.NEY_A_ QQWDA
no 53, 25TH caoss
em BLOCK. mnzvua, -.;.n.~..;A….n..:-9.12
BANGALORE-82
V RESFGN’DEl’u”E’S
M
U\
.2.
{By …:1 ; A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADV FOR R1 ”
THIS }v”.’FA FILE!) ugs 17341} C)?
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD .DA’!’.ED:’?.6.05–;»PASSED._ IN» _
MVC NC).5SSOii)3 or»: THE 1=_.’-‘ILE .._}’.’J%lI”AD.|i’!!.A.
JUDGE, MEMBER, MAUI’-4, c()U1é’_1*A~ D1=”sMA’L1,’ cgxusas,
BANGALORE, (scan-4) PA1?TL’Y- , C1-Aw.
PETITION FOR coMPr:3:qsATI’oN ,_ AND,’JA«Av…,sEEKmo
ENHANCEMENT or COMPEf°.$AT10NQ”
THIS MFA COMING 6N*:’l*’€5R~,HEAi?VI’NGV THIS DAY,
C’;O’u’fi MABE THE .FOL§;Q’.¥E.v,,,{}:’D
by the judgment
and d=a, 7..’:~;f2.Do5 5550/03 of the Motor
.l’~….1..,’._r.1.-*’:=1j_L’ Bangalore city, for short
‘MAL “‘1″‘-A2. _, his this anpee-.1 fer e.n.l1.=mce.rm…¢:nt of
….. ., »
V’in”‘the ac’r:’d’i”1t t.}'”‘t ‘”*–cm’rc€’.. en 9. 10.200-. 151).:
Va aged 65 years an occupant of the tempt»-
~ ,%uavéner bearing registration No.KA 05/C-3789, from
‘V to Maralwadi, suffered grievous injuries and
Has as an i__1,:_nAt_ic11t for a period of 26 days from
r1 – ital and Research Ins’.:itute, B.¢.=.11.¢.g-;.1r..\_..;’;’.l’,”~i.a.r..he1r_1e:::.§_”-, .
.71
underwent surgical i11terveni:i011’py
and screws, are facts not in 0Lisppté§
regard to the evidence oréfi azjd
i:.11a.1.: of Dr.Shivak1;_1;nar the
1) %
ii) ”
~ii_ “ia~.11fi”fi1=fi*ifian, ” GOO,’-
xiv} of life : 15,0001-
u–….q.———.—–..n–.
i 3. The injury sustained by the claimant, recorded
‘V the wound ccrfifiéatc EJLP5 reads thus:
“fnnflmmnng r_)\_rg1~ Lhg yi
IA\n5’ J\C\JJ J .I\rI-r -.
g,h_1.: k_r;0c joint;
M
x=ra3,r shws sI..p…. …..ndi1..z’ efI_.vti1e
right f’emur'””
Medical Ofiicer, Sanjaye”‘ve«i§andni
summary and that
surgical 10.03 and on
not to bear weight
for six ‘Weeks. {iepietien of the !’1r’ac:tmi
inzihe «Fifi shows “that the site of
of bone was at the junction of
fghe knee em. True document also contains the billing’ ‘
” 111’ i§’s.8978/ -. VEx.P7 are the receipts issued
auuzpunu __ _: p “s else ‘sills o
having’ puvchased medicines. X-rays ane
_. .11.: 1……-.-.-.-It-.-“1
‘4:
n’l-hnr
\aI U|II\\l’&
ca
E3
ii
II”!-
‘I 1.1–
* : 4_rad’iological report are Ex.P9.
3. The claimant examined as PW–1 spoke to the
injuries, the period of hospitalisation, tgneatlnent and the
expenses incurned, while Dnshivakumar examined as
W\
PW-2 testified to the injuries sustained, 4_
the treatment extended
disability incurred by the
4. An Judginent
and award of failure to
\.-u1u:u\.nu1 .}….. .>.u’..y;.e’.V. ., …. …… ….
the faiiacy in the
superficial and cursory
undertaken without reference to
it awarded compensation.
_ __ I
..m- J d e.u., EH?’ ‘ “=”‘ is she’.-m te sufier uvfh legal
in
Q3
:1
E
C
A , iflfl’ A occa__ sionmg’ grave injustice to the appe11an’ t,
. = ‘r4a1liI1§gj£brL:;’i1iterfeIence.
x 5. The appeiiant in her advanced age i.e. 65
d = suffered fracture of the supra eondilar ofthe right
femur at the junction of the knee; a gievous injury,
oecasioning pain and agony. It is common knowledge
t1′”‘t wemen in india sufi’er %m the de-gen’eTt.*¥e
I
[J
riisoase “f osteoporosi . It *=- v-n*-mmn1I:i”””‘7g_s§s.;uj “:3
‘Pain and suffering’ do not meanpjghe same’
or anyone else would be willing srfifi’
suffering’ have no exchange zrglue there:
equate them to anything ‘In vvview of the
r..r1a…_1;-.1’, compene:_1tii:fin_ ‘tov:;ax3da’p[ and suffering
etc. To add to
injyniy, patient for 26 days at
Saniaya where she underwent surgical
I-‘
nlaees and 8 screws and was
4-‘In…-..
advised not’-Vtoi_____e::er-t wmight “‘1 Lu “*6 rim}: for six
‘ * appellant will have to undergo yet another
. ” xnemoval of implants. In the circumstances,
was not justified in awarding Rs.25,000/– as
x “eomw..sa…….,- En.h..t-:-nci_n.g the same to Rs.45,000_l-, in
-….1 ….__.._….I..1…
f. auu Iuarsuxnuuxc.
6. Tue award of Rs.5,{.'(m,’= towa.._s”‘;e.;_t.rz,.yane-.
attendant charges, food and ‘is; .o_ti=ie
lower side. I say so because the: of}
Arohalli, required the
the d_ista_nee between Gandhi
hospital}, is –r- I ems it
appIopriate_fih;_at under the said
head gs is, accordingly
awarded}: dd ot..eR:s.6,000/- towards future
not call for interference.
‘V undoubtedly suffered from
—-¢,._
.A.1..u.c..i ah pw-2 Dr.Shivak_umar_. testified that
_’l1__’I..1I.lJ.._
uun._y’ ‘uv’*s -45% t” the lower limb and
‘t-o:°t11e whole body and that the appeiianifs ngn’ ‘ t
to s limb was short by 2 ems, it is not possible to
V’ ‘accept that opinion. I say so because the evidence of
PW42 is too sketchy and st_:e_11ty does not record the
W.
and radioiogicai fir1’ii””s in th” eiaimfion of the
IN
V ‘\
wheat appeiiatlt 65 years
dimjulty. The shortening of the right lovyg’-:1’* diaiiot
physicfifiy m”sur'”-‘_
evidence-in–chief records .. ‘ = f 1-‘
appellant to the doctb_1’…_ at
examination and also cc of the
hnrlv at the
ulsrsu’, –l. ..
¥_§i1:’;e,; ” appropriately the
wastage of museie -i:fi”figf”f’_”‘3’*x’ai’i’i:~.i5i’ me thigh. rw a2
fu11;her___ bone has since
united. oral and documentary
evi:de11ce,.Vit’.i§3.. ‘td infer that the appellant did
e1L*’fer.*”i’.._.;;z1 -:1.;’;:=_t.,.:a’I;i::’i_l_;’_”..?;Ii.1.IL 11,: :9 the extent of 16% to the
I
+-I-
—-. 1-…
C
V
ago, 111 in
‘ her life, cannot be said to be a labour fame,
100/– per day, and in that view of the
U\..Il.l..Ill\;.l.l.t’.Il3I.-H.111 J\lL
‘the MAC!’ was justificd in declining to award
Jtum .9 ‘mar (11 I’_.O
-5 ‘on… ‘cu… —–ya.
nuul-Inn fin.-r 1953
la-
-:_–_,:
disability. J \
F’
3. The disauility, r.1i.M.m.f.–
frustration, as also the disfig1njen1ent_::’rue: “f
thigh muscle are Ielevaist
compensation for loss xamenitfies l;if!’>.._V hgilnd
opinion, in the facts the
9. ‘f.;—-,1r.
Ila-
in
“i~’fi’a’.% ……r .1′ He W i g
c
E
I
I
!
1′:
‘I’fiI”I
co::x1peIjsatio117_ibr expenses. Ex.r: series
diseioses fl1st” expended Rs.3.226/- for
as well as services rendered by
at the same time the IP –
41′ r1…….n-.4
1 Sanj’y u mm hepspi*….,-=’ di…-Lses
“‘~–Rs.».39?3/- as the cost of medical 1’1’eatmeI1t ineiudmg
as surgery, cost of implants and medicines. The
V’ ” ‘eonterlts of the bills when examined in the light _ of the
co..i;…t_ -1’. the summaxy, of discharge and admission
IL.
IF’
– t..:_a__. Law ,1′ the matter, is
entitled to Rs. 12,2 4;’-(3,226 + s,9?a;eem:mdé.e to
Rs.12,200/- towards1ned1ca1′ ‘
in the result, the is” fies
impugned Judgnnem ‘and .p1:§1odiiied’b§11tifli11g the
appellant to with interest
at 8% pa; addition to what
i… 9.11 -o_.11.A_ respects
rexnaine comper18_a’tTi’n i- eiree-+–*
I-51!
to appellant who is said to be
p1*es¢11tdy V
«tn
d/-
‘ ‘I’
Jud
Ln.