High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajanna @ Raju S/O Kariyappa vs Rajegowda S/O Ramegowda on 10 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rajanna @ Raju S/O Kariyappa vs Rajegowda S/O Ramegowda on 10 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And K.N.Keshavanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE Tom DAY OE NovEME_ER:2Ijd9 --   

PREsEETr~_Aj' F'
THE HONBLE 1\/IR.JIJI€~i1'I(;I.AI§iA'I§I.I{§P!VAi.i'I.L.   
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTIAQ.IIIfI{IN';'KESITIAVANAl§AYANA
M. E    

BETWEEN:    
RAJANNA @  I  ijj 

S/O KARI3I*AP~PA_.   ~

AGED "ABOUT 64f?*.'EARS~-

R/o:.RAJAGH'AT.TA,   - I

HASSAN=TAi,UI{ _DIS'1'R__IC1_". .. . APPELLANT

(By sRI.C;,M.sRII{ANTII,:_ADv.)

   'RAJEG»C)WDA s/0 RAMEGOWDA

 ,_;\<IAJOR_II*{1»'iGE
A , owI\_IERi._0E LORRY BEARING
'RECIISTRATION NO.CTX 8281
R/O'B.KATIHALLY

 I  HASSAN.

''  THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED
GANDHI BAZAR CIRCLE

HASSAN.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER  RESPONDENTS

:9′
I: MA

5′

If

(By SRLRGUNASHEKAR, ADV. FOR RS2.
R-1 IS SERVED.)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/3173(1) oE~MV’jA¢T::A«SAzNST
THE JUDGMENT a AWARD DA:frE:j”22_/3. _/290.5 ‘EAS’S’Ep’:’1N v

MVC.NO.783/2002 ON THE F1LE.Q3E THE PRL;~ .D1S’1fra.¢”r.a

SESSIONS JUDGE :3: MEMBER, MACH, 15ARTLY”

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETI’Ti_ON_ FOR-EOMIDENSATION 81
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT CQMP-ENSAT1’O1v’;”

THIS M.F.A. fEC»f§’A:3N1’I-SSION THIS DAY.
N.K.PATIL_. J_.,’ 1§E.I,IVD§fi§§:D:’E!’Ifi<§"1§5QIg;O'f?JiNG:
_ _ .

against the judgment and

award datea :22=.1Q2005 passed in M.V.C.No.783/2002

file of rhe””Principa1 District and Sessions Judge

Accident Claims Tribunal–I, Puttur,

‘for brevity), on the ground that, the

Compensation of RS.47,O0O/– awarded by the Tribunal

‘axzitfQ interest at 6% per annum, is inadequate and

2 v___:{“equi_reS enhancement.

w-…_«

the claim petition in part and awarded of

Rs.47’,OO0/W with interest at 6% per

date of petition til} the datewof’«realisa.ti_on:._’l§ei:.ng ii.

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation aWai*de’cf

by the Tribunal, the appell’aniti.has appeal
on the ground that the awarded by
the Tribunal, is enhancement

by modifying judgrripent of the Tribunal.

tn-e…1earned counsel appearing
for the learned counsei appearing for
second ui*e_sponden’t._alnsurance Company and perused

the;i:.on’g’inal re(:or.ds;

..:33..VvThe..undisputed facts of the case are that on

account the injuries sustained in the accident, the

..a};)peii’ant was inwpatient for 2 months and 22 days,~

it which period he should have suffered lot of pain

” ~~and agony and the Doctor has assessed the disability

at 22% in respect of right lower limb and 11% to the

%M~«~~–*

J,

whole body. The Tribunal is not justified a

sum of Rs.15,000/– towards pain

without taking into consideratfionlthe natiuref of ‘

and the duration of treatmentvltalien by,l.t}he:’appellant)’up

Therefore, we deem it fit to”r4a’ward towards
pain and sufferings ‘fast l–” awarded by

the Tribunal.

e. Rs.11,000/–

towardsvrfiedidaliij towards loss of
earnings ‘ nl period and Rs.I3,250/~
towardsVV”loss..olV which in our opinion are

and reas’on.a_ble and therefore do not call for

‘ p.in*terfe_reneel'”by this Court.

The Tribunal has Committed error in awarding

only..”R.s.4.000/~ towards disability and loss of

it ‘-~ar11eniti.es, which is on the lower side. The appellant

-~-was in–pat1′.ent for nearly 21/2 months and he has also

taken follow-up treatment and the Doctor has assessed

A

L

6

the disability of the appellant as stated

account of the injuries sustained, which are perrnanengt

in nature and which the ‘4

during the rest of his life

Rs.25,000/– towards disa15il.ity» and l”oss”o–f: arnienities as
against Rs.4, O00 /-. g:mrard_edd”Vhy ‘ti:e_”l’.ribunal. it

8. Further: ejovinmitted error in
not awardwihg towards conveyance,
nourishing.florid charges. It is an
adII1l:tt€(l” appellant was in~patient for
nearlyA2%/ggmonths_v”an.d4he should have spent some

reasonable amount, towards conveyance, nourishing

food and .attendant charges. Therefore, we deem it fit

— towards conveyance, nourishing

food and attendant. charges.

2 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed

part. The impugned judgment and award dated

22.1.2005 passed in M.V.C.N’o.783/2002 on the file of

. weagdeeni it to ‘award,

7

the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Member.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Puttur, is.-‘-hereby
modified by awarding compensation of
against. Rs.47,000/- awarded by the
enhanced compensation of if’

interest at 6% per annum frorn?__th’e_’dated,_t3f:pe’titior1.till.L

the date of deposit. The brlealriip is as H

1. Towards pain and suffe_ri’nlgsu__

2. Towards medical expaiscslil’

3. Towardls.yc or11<;:eyanlce_,l' nourishing
food and;*atter1dant~»..charges

4. To’wai’ds’ d.isabi].ity_.a:i1d..-
Loss ‘-of ame’niti3s. V

5. Towards loss of earning

‘duriiig the period

. ‘Fowa.rds’–loss of future income

Total

.. l’ig’h_e second respondent ~– Insurance Company is

receipt of copy of the judgment.

Rsllv

“is.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

130,000-00

1 1000-00

l5,000~O0

25,000–O0

3,750–O0
l3,250~00
98,000–0O

Aidirected to deposit the enhanced compensation with

interest. within a period of six weeks from the date of

On such deposit by the Insurance

same shaii be released in favour of

immediateiy.

Office is directed to draw fhe la-Wardjé1..t;c’§jI’dihgij?’.~ ‘V

Tfx,gafid§
‘JUDGE

e;§UDGE

RSI