IN Tm. HIGH COURT OF i<;ARNA'i'AI<LA AT V' " ~ V. Datad this the 17"' day arrsovember, 295$' . :-,1 ' Before: 231:: HON 31:1; MR JUSYYCE Hz:};§I%:%1_bk (:9 ';??"4".'ix§':fVE¥.gi1;.;.J. A . i ._ .Mi.sc¢-Ilaxaeous Gricntal Insuramze Co, Ltd ._ , _ _ D C) if 10, R/'a # 233-217, H Finer A B1 Main, =1'h Cross, Chasnaxfigpgt. _ ' Bangalore 18 " Regitmal V Residency Roac§_§3r;:'7_ss;;_ § Byits Adxr.--§mi=a§;a1iw: Ciflr1_':<.-,_e Appeilant (By Srifi-'Makes. L % And: V 1 V, %vim1ikris}:s;éi.§§a 25 yrs - €Rf;§-LCfo.Venugapaifiuilding . 3 Dodwukafiasmdra Village & Poxt " V Road, Bangaiore 62 2 I P Kumévsasivaxny R53' Iataguni Vfilage 8: Past Kamakapma Main Road Baznggalme 62 Respondents
“$5
This Fkst Appeai is filed under S.1?3( 1) of the Motor Vehicles Asst
u pmying he set aside the judgment and award éaied 23.4.2065 in MVC
5925:3004 by the MACT, Bmgalflrc.
‘§’his First Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Com: Vdeiivered
the feflewing: .4
J UD GMEN T
This appeai is against the award pae2eei”By’ the in
MVC 5925 2′ 2604.
On 13.5.2094 arnund see p.r::i. the eiafiirzaei was ::’iiii.’i1§;:I1f;§>to;:§* c;,L~c:e_ v
KIA (39 L 868 aiong with one more éxrhen the’r:2e:ter’:eycv§f;e was going
en Bangalore Kanakapura maieéffiwad 1§ea§.e1:1L a eareeering No. KA
05 MC 9315 came at high speag W1; afed-‘eeV”g1:gen§.’–~maxmer and éasheci
ageing! mot{)f’e§<feleV e§ue £o4 t§:ev_ri<_ie;_" of the meter cycle fefl down and
sustained fkaemre 'f:afiii«h11merous and fracture of the right uina,
fraetureV ef :ighf"iegVbeth.;boi1es,V'fiiultiple injuries over face, eibew jeint and
V' '–ethe;v-eftxltigaie freetz1reeL"""Aier:g with other claimant, eiaim petitions" were
filed' eeekikng 'eaimgensation. The maiter was eentested. The Tribunal has
avéardefl a s1irt;e{;fV;E3isV.5,7I,9O¢3f- at the rate of 6% 13.3.. I-iswevezg out of the
2 iakhs has not bwn awarded and it has been reserveé fer
V» V' "..:fi1fufe":nediVeal expenses. Aggrieved by the award, ehalienging the quantum
— of’;;e:i2’p§ensatierx, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court,
Heard the counsei representing the insurer.
W
3
As per the weund certificate, there is a fracture of right humerus, right
uina and right ieg femur anti there is aiso abrasicon aver the fgcé the
muscles of the elbew joint were exposed. The claimant éia:_ i1;.-&
patient for twenty five days. As per $115 opinion of ihe Zhég’ ‘
sugared 22% disability ten the whole body. Lgéiég,’ ‘he w.§«as._agjai;i,gi§1:_r,s.:§eci”gs in
patient and was also operated on the right :}’;t;mcro13:SgfrA.zic£:31~’e,»v i=41.it’c:zf:vi3l,
fixation was inserted and acc<)rding"'v£g.{"3r;e cifiimafiig. {'i:a$'" going by
autorickshaw for follow up vt:*e.a trnen&t;'3i:d. spe1;f'§{s.3VA"i:acs towards
meéieai expenses. The in ihis regard.
Various bills prnducedby cnnsideratian Whiflih
amounts arxzigrzoiher Rs.33,395s’~ and neafiy, he
has spend Ra. Zlacs expenses.
Under ‘ L”mcdi::.ai éxpfissés, the c3aiman£ has been awardeé
. ‘.R$.2:,€}a;’§.5§(}%.- agxd ti’*1Q§1t”d:;¢s¢r:o£ require any interference. {finder the head
and sufi%:riz:g°’Rg.1S58flh0£~ has been awarded and it is very nominal. The
eman: :i;;s”‘s1;>en’t;f 1’is.1<3a;~ per day feet fallow up treaunent, £9 visit the
. hospiié1an;1:h;:t"has net beam: tam sum consideration. There is said to be
" " ' .,é::%{1isaBi:2ty ané what has been noted as per the evideme at" the deem: is,
fraétxzre cf fine ulna needs re-fixation with apex: gafiing, the hané
W .
deformity neeés corrective surgery, em, and the same may ca;<z§a'P\–S,A2..t§'
lacs.
In this regard, the gievance of $126: appelixmtéis, :;1}’iV11’€§:2V’1’g}£;it £3″ §pined_V ‘A x
mm anofixer Rs.6,0fl0;-‘- is requirezd for future medigai _rt’h2 T;frii:1.;§:;:i:
has awarded 13.3.2 lakhs under that hc::fi_.”–.. ctgursé, as fiie L’
evidence of the Doctor, the “fribunal }1as. §51.r+i::f;::zi Vbaséé’ ‘vtlhe éiziéence uf
PW 3 that he may need R52 }a.*:.és;.V:fo’§2s*a«_zVfds expenses. In this
regaré, Split up ev’iéenQe_ is givim régardiggg firgxafimg :~}f_:2-is fracture of {Baa
and them’ é ‘ { 1: V” ” removal of
plates and Zsgrem; ai f§i;::V5~2ngc’i’ ‘t’s.»v§}§’,»v’v:=-‘.__ar:recémtfuctive”–s1n*g§t3,z be feliowed. Necessarily as opiaed
by the §>£)c£n:f, :13; fies awarded RS2 lakhs. For tha injuries
:’Tr;§¥;u;:aI haéméiwarded anly Rs,15,{)O0f- tewards pain and
sfifréfingg.’ * heads alse it has caiculateé the disabiiity at 20%
a;:hms}g,h_Vi: is thatthere is 22%-disabiiiiy.
K x V ” VTLJe1;ccov£:3ing $0 the argument af the appellanfs cmlnssrl, the ciaimant is
sf1_. cidiléégfierator and he does not have :9 dc hard work. But the claimant has
T Vt’:z’:~r::T>vc {mm phase to place and it is his business and ha cannot sit and squat
Oigfil/_/..
and :30 the business. in fire circurnstances, the: compensatien
ether heads needs no interference.
However, so far as awarding of fimzre medical ¢xp§n§e.s is _& b ‘w
the “fribmzal has awarded such amount ih¢«médica1
question for consideratien is whether a1no1 m__t émjérded fimme ‘it1€~.£1’i<.:Va'i~.VV
expgztses is justified. As is noted in tIie'a'J;{i'(is:nce (Sf 3, the '
vmious injuries and what are, $133 t 'Hz:-wevér, another
Rs.50,£){)(}f» could be reduceai jfiiifi 'ciaimaixt has mutt been
awarcieci suitably umi§.r':'1_;e heat? "In that View of the
matter, Idzgma fix§ti"r;::;;¥1§__is required.
1:; .2/the Qraoeiifying the award, the ammxnt cf
‘ awargleé fi§na”‘Rg’:71,9eo;~ is reduced to Rs.5,21,9i)()/— whiie
“ffhe remzimhg amount of wmpensation awarded
doeé ‘§;:;y’T:’merfe;~e:me. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.
_ ‘_ ‘ ‘ be transfenredte the Tfibunal for ciisbursernent.
Sd/-