Smt. Divakara S/O Devappa Gowda vs Sri S Subramanya S/O Swamy Rao on 12 October, 2009

IN1}flEHKH{COURTCHTKARNHDMULATBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANA1'-EDAV     O

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APpEm:~1s:o,52'6'O/Dfiéofafmty  'O "

BETWEEN:

SMT. DIVAKARA s/o. DEVAPPA GOWDA; 
LORRY CONDUCTOR,  "  --. ' 
AGED: ABOUT 23  * U
R/O. BILUVE VILI;~,A.GE;--_  ' V
KUDUMALLIGE POST, A
THIRTHAHALLI TQ-.',~. _  '
SHIMOGA«£)I';'-ST.  Z.   j'
   '  ...APPELLANT

(By s1~;f   ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

SR1 s.O"sU_'BRAMAVYA" s/0. SWAMY RAG,
__iAGE: 26 YEARS, V

- ':1\/IARUVTHI OMNI"DRIVER,

, R./A, SONALE,
" 'HQSANAQ;§,RA IQ.

_ T. S, SATISH S/O. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO.
 AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF MARUTHI OMNI CAR
BEARING REGN. NO.KA-01/N-4918,

R/'O SONALE VILLAGE.

" ,  "~«_HosA1\§AGARA TQ.



3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, B. H. ROAD,
SHIMOGA,

(POLICY NO.6709'783 VALID FROM

13. 12.2004 '90 12.12.2005}.

   ._ '-"'4'. RE.S_PONVD-ENTS A

(NOTICE TO R~1 AND R-2 IS D1SpENSE_OWITH';A"II '~ A A
Sri. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE EOR R-3}'-,_ = 2 R. .0

THIS IS AN APPEAL  U./VS. 173(1) OI?' MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUI)'GMENT_  DATED:
25.10.2008 PASSED IN 'Am/CI-«NO. I70,"/200_e ON THE FILE
OF THE 11 ADDL; C1VIL'J'U~I§§2E ISRI  AI\ID ADDL. MACT,
SHIMOCA,     PETITION FOR
COMpENS:ATI:ON""I'A1\I1j¥fiI'j;SE-EiI{1N.C*A ENHANCEMENT OF

COI\/TREIsISAf£**ION'1I;I.IITTI9% INTEREST.

THIS APPEAL ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THETCCUR*If_D'ELIVfERED THE FOLLOWENG:

 ..... 

   Ciaimanfs appeai for enhancement Of

COinpeIiSaIiOn.

 



2. I have heard Sri M. V. Maheshwarappa, learned
counsel for claimant and Sri. Lingaraj, learned co'u.if1se1"--Vfor

insurance company.

3. The claimant was knocked"dov.'n'~l;)y-:lv'la_rLztlf1Vibrnni

van bearing No.KA--01/N--49_18 lay 

11.00 am on 10.08.2005 whegwthe clair_nant'.=vilashcrossinglV

Thirthahalli--ShiInoga Road near  claimant
has deposed that the  'due to rash and
negligent  of  fie respondents,
including  not adduced rebuttal
€V1dC1'l,C'3'."~   5' company had not obtained
permission' on the grounds available to
the insuruedq The held that the accident took

p18,Cjl:?"'vdU€ to V.lCO1':lv§1"1b'l,1t0I'y negligence of claimant and 1-

 apportioned negligence in the ratio 50:50.

in'-l'_Q;-ljél-:'l"'_{og_ appreciate the correctness of findings of the

it ' = _ 5 accident'.

tribunal; it is necessary to consider the facts, whi Eh lead to

 



The accident took place at about 11.00 am on
10.08.2005 on Shivrnogga-Thirthahalli Road near Tudki
village. The claimant was working as a cleaner of __1_orry.

After lorry had been parked by the side of road, c1ai_mar1t»_fgot

down from the lorry and he was crossing the if :I-..». 1.

Respondent who was driving the Marathi Oinniflfraniilbeazjng 0' "

I\§o.KA~»01 /N41918 owed a duty 3  

pedestrians. The I-RespondedV_t"--shou1d.. have  

of car on reaching the village  -Txhe respondents 1 and
2 have not adduced rebutta1_ ei:idence:V._'pivn.'the circumstances,

finding of the Trfibuna].~-=:h_at  0 place due to

contribiitoiy ffnegligence.4V:of.'_1--Respondent and claimant can
not be siistained.~.V_.f'  a 

_ 4:. Regarding  of Compensation:-- As per

'0 if   t:ertifi(p:ate,'Vcl'airnant had suffered following injuries:--

 a   Abrasion measuring 8 cm X 3 cm
' "  over left clove;

 . (111 Abrasion over left fore--arm 5 cm
0' X 3 cm;

(iii) Abrasion over left knee;

 



(iv) Fracture of pubis ischius (Rt)
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.54,000/~ under following heads:-- 2
(i) Pain and suffering and    .
mental agony : Rs. "~ ' 

(ii) Loss of earnings:   «_  «'~ 

(iii) Medical expenses:    

(iv) Attendant charges.;j   13000/-
6. The claimant; j -- apart }  .A : producing wound
certificate, had not made"  '7plrove nature of
injuries  __'lhere.fo1fe,lclainiant is not entitled

to corn'pen.sationV.towa1jds__los,s'  earning capacity and future

loss of edmings.  has failed to prove the nature

and_§effect of l"di._slal3ilities, therefore he is not entitled to

VZlcorniaensaiionvunder the head future medical expenses.

to the nature of injuries and their residual

effects, .--__a'  of Rs.6,000/-- is awarded towards loss of

 Jamenitiesl Thus, claimant is entitled to total compensation

 e.ll'ofRsAl6O,OOO/--.  

 



7. In the result. I pass the following-

ORDER

[i) The Appeal is accepted in part; V Z i

(ii) The impugned awaI”t:1»Aisir11Qd’ifieci; ”

(iii) Compensation? of 2

awarded by
enhanced to «~

interest the ‘:60/9 p.a.

_ .dat’ , _:’;?ea1iAstiti.Qn’, which

g from the __d’at_¢ i’.r:_f j;ettt1t5h.j’V_~tt11- the

_ A’ e [Of *
I correc ta: 5:6 .0.» _ 19,6 $11″
a t.o2.:1. 2009 ‘3.a.nd seVe.ral1_V._1iE1b1ef;(g\’pay; ‘

:7__{iv)_ * __ and investment
‘ ” shall he’Ain:_4th__e”réiti0 evolved in the

~.1’Iripugnet£_ award;

A. W) A.1’?artiesmét19e directed to bear their

sax-

s s JUDGE