High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivaraj @ Murugan vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 20 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj @ Murugan vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 20 August, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'}.'A.i~iA AI'%jf.sA}&§}A:(,§)§a*gJ 

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY" :32?   

BEP'(}R§:~:__ 

'rm: HON'BLE MR.  ANAr4D:3*gt;:A§";2 goes aw)

Shivardj@M_&r§£a"'    

24 years, S;b'Pe.rtiin:§§_ '   _   

Resident ofYa'§a¢3hag&ppa' " f ~ A'  

TaVzarei~:eft: --HébIi "f:.:   

}3anga:5t3re__Suui%§.V~.__ "a    %  APPE¥,,I,.ANT

(By S1214;  'S}ias':E:§*i.,- A3v()cale)

 V ]:v§"'Qfi€5fl[§c!'¥"I.{i§§i${'dHii6

..  Ljimited
" . DD. VIII, ZDVG Read
'Bra1:._:'ih  at

 No; 19!' 1, 3"i Cross

 A. Chikiianna Gardezi

 , Shankannull Compound
 'iiihamaxjpet, Bangalerc

 By its Manager

 2. Mrs. Gizija

Residing at Behind
Si. Vv'art:n:s Schooi

Z



Kamakshipalya
Bangalore ... RESPOKDENTS

(By Shfi. O. Mahcsh, Advtxzate {hr Respondent No. .l_"'V*.4.l3:r';_'c--tt_l'1'**«_7vve:cti1,:c

to Respondent No. 2 dispensed with) =. L” A’ ..

1l!$$1l!$

This Miscellanetaus First his
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act=__ againfst *$i1el..judge:n§nt,and

award dated 20.7.2066 pa5st:dV in MV.CfNu. Lin the:”filc
of the 13″‘ Additicnat scg, Metjnbez-,=Mc:o: *.{\¢¢idants..3 Claims
Tribunal-4, Metropolitan Ama5,VV”‘Bangalt2rc “‘l{5i=CCH—4), partly
allawing the claim petitifan far cpnipcnmtion a’:’3d.§tq.,;§

This Appeal cumihfgttun ‘i’s_)_ri;{:’1’é1ttlV’ this day, the Court
delivered the fotlmviz3g:~__ V’ ‘ _

L l;Wf3hhGMENT
‘ Hcatrztttlxc CQ;3fis§t’t%J} the appellant and the: I’t’5Sp(}t’tdt3fl.t.

{the was the clainumt betbrc the Motor

Tribunal and the appellant. having sulfared

serious .§;g;:;:tes and even alter treatment, found suffering with a

pcnnettitstzt disability of 20% tn the whole body, had appmauhcd

ll ltlfibunai for compensation. The Trfibanal has awarded 2: total

of Rs,l,63,(}40f-. The appellant is before this court masking

cxthartmsmrgnt .tft,:t,rmpcnsati_¢,>n,

Z

3

3. The primary conltznliunts are that [lie Tribunal has

awarded Rs.7I,0Oi}:’« itiwards future i033 :31′ earning on agcuunl of

disability adopting the imzumc at Rs.i,500i’- pcr%m¢):i.iih;:iii’L:”lfii:)ugh

the accident was if the year 2803, the appcilant iiéizis

than R:,-:.l00/- per day and the Trib;ti’ié;i§”0a:ghi–§1

the income at Rsi100:’- instead pf Rsififiiri-“.–.. Thmigh. :fi1t:i’pct¢éii§i.éigr:i
of disability is abum 20%, fi1ciiV”1’71ii¥f>:inaI i’i’c’t.*s_ 131:: same at
24%, which wuuid re:2:i:4_li’~..in i.’%).!’3.’T§§€,ii(}!’3.ii Iiisullir as the

ainuaugviiitif c@Ii1i.pcn§§;1’ii:xii”ii§’cunc§$fii{sd, the same be L:c3m.pui,c:d an
that that has i3ifi{SV,¢arz3ii’:igw~”Rs.I0O:’- per day iiisiead ufR:s.5():’-

and 3.-hc irfi’-diiiiibiiily to be taken at 20%, in which

ii”‘3f\;’£:’i:i; “m_ay iiii icntiilcd to subsianiial (:2I1i’!’c£!§i.§i3.¥I1£:3!’!i emf

i.:uiiip»§i:1its:}.tii§i)r1..ii.i’37h: C(}iii’iSt:i wuuid also xubmit [hat there: was: an

crsiiir-1a,£ii’)i1i. Gffuliire medical cxpciises for rcmcwai :_3i’implant.s and

i tiitflftibviifiai has not granted any ammmi. The appellant. is cnlificai

iii) 3. i§;i:bsLani;.ia.I amxmni, towards fuiurts m_edicaZ tsxpensesi

4. The Cuunstsl for the rtzspuzadeni woaid su§*§i:11’i:.ifl’f;I?:1’éiv§5 the

com ulaliun xafutagn nsalion would nmmssafilv izuivts ii.) t:4′;’fd7. L

of trealmslll. If this is {}g1r:k3red§i;; ‘i.n {he}.”_Vcg{§mf3u[é:.i’iiyn’V1.:-LI’

culnpcmsatiun, while adapting .::.1;iul£_i;)ii-Vtiz*,. %t)u¥d bafi:
[0 be ktzpi in view, in du%i :§gfwhich he has.

awarded loss (.)[‘ibflt3{)I’l’1t3VkEw!7E.w4.{:._lV§”:3.(;3 would have to be
taken into ‘;rxfi’u’¥'{:ipZicr. Thercihrc, the
appelfa,;:£ i/:M”iz.) ‘iésser amount of cumptmsaiicm and
in the £3ii’i;V2§i.’é.¥f§v}.’3′..€§1I’;§’5\’?fi;; Jlhe appelianl was claiming to be an

ag_ti€:ul:tgia*ai_~ t;m§I”i’t::,« .£h;;: tsmpleynacni would be seasonal and Ihert: is

‘ :.ré)’g.ua:1ii1$.¢t3.;§i’—continmyus cmpiuymenl. Hence, there it; :20 basis

R.}£s.3,0(}{};’~ as the irmunic uf the appeilam Hausa, the

Tribunafhaving pmutzedcd in 3 prudeni manner in having adopted

ihtj giicurrzc at Rs. I,5OGx’- pct” month canrml be said to be irregular.

S. Insofar as the {alum medical ti)-i.[)(‘3fISt3S are cxmccrrstzd, the

acciderfi being uf the year 2003, any such future medical

8

5
expenditure: caught ta) have been incurred teztwerat ytztara-; ago. The

appcilant not having fumishcd any particulars the

same, ii is appamnily 3 false ciaim am} d§2sfru.)ti’

cun:sidcration.. The Tribunal has .t;fiiri’i§: End L

lhcrefurc, would submit that tht_:rc isingxiiwarmni-‘t.tii;r’if1iei’.féi”t:11i:e:1

In any event, the appellant _graiitc4t_i’ia’i’iIari:g5j; amuurai. mi’

uompcxisation and this ifiiiiiid eihuri-$41] in any at’ the

heads as coniendfid by V i

Q21 th£$t:t_i'<::1riia:iii¢.;r:–s,f and em a cunzsideraiiurz of the

matcrizif cm ;1:u0fcii,i:.:'th§:'*~ grounds urged by the apjgiciiant,

firsilyvthatiitE1t;i*t:.;)t1g}i2_ tfiibc a larger amount of £}{)¥I§pt3IlSE£i.ii)I'i

'~ _ lu!A}§j£ird§.ii§'u£.ur¢ lt:xiS;:§'é;§–*sarning musi be rightly accepted. Applying

' ..v¢cry4'ba§iii"'ihat the Tribunal has done, but pmccading on that

Wis' mguiitéie W earning Rs_3,000f- instead nr R:::.l,S{){}z'- per

{Haiti}; éiridittiat the percentage oiidisabifity was 20%, the appcitani

V wangid entitled to R:«;.1,29,6G{)z'- as curnpcnsation [awards

'A-giiisability and cainsesqucni fuiurc less {if income. Insulizr as the

g

lass of incume during the psrisxl of treatment is C0,DCEffi#?(.l, the

appellant has certainly made out a case For

appellant is held entitled to Rs.7,(.);i),()V/'-__ tuwafds"iliiigaiaiiii'Aaangiiagi.

during the period of treatment, to
future medical cxpcnscs at
may not haw: pnxlucc(l,.-niatcrial"'ta i$l1ii'w_an),:r iéxpendituns already
incurred towards such was evidence

as rcgands impla'i1tsV'_'whi§i:h the appellant is

cntitlcil £9 'c«anta:;ti<)n that there has to be
modificatimi (if {Eh-:_ in View of the appellant receiving

fllfliiiiifllsi'~l(3W3I"d3'-.l()SS 01' earning during the period vi' treatment is

»c;0n2;cII1§:d, tms cxcrcise is; not mandatury. Though the appellant

tiaaycsitireceiiija certain benefit, the amaunt of cumpensatiun

grantesd is on an approximation and ihcraliire, there is no warrant

"i.i"it,3V ifiiitqasurc the same an golden scaltts. Even if the appellant is

ctfaifcrred a larger amuant tat' compcnsaiiein having regard to the

V' nature of injuries and the disability, there is no injastict: caused .

Z

Accordingly, the appcal is albwcd and the ap;1cl}aI3%:..':§é;

entitled to an additional oompensatiun of R:~;."I;i¢ii',:t$f}(_)f§ 1

interest at 6% perzmzuum from ihedalc ufclaim.

H’, . . ‘ . ‘I V’