IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF I\§OVEE\/IBESR, 2009 PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'r1cE N.K.PA'17-IL ' 3.: 57 _ AND THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE T M.F.A.No. 9055-..QF 2006 (M*-gj%% 5; " BETWEEN: %' ' I' V J.B. Mahendra KLzIiiar.'._ " S/0. Bhujabaiaiah. A : 37 Years. R./a N03.15.-q"&.P..Ai3O2:d',. 1. * " RPC Layout.'--~Vgayanaga1u._ _ ' 2nd Stage, Es'anga1'Qré;_--V40.'_' " V' ' ' Appeiiant (By sag.' P.4V.Kaip§g'na _A.S.s:nva Reddy. Aclvocam-s._-- Abse;nt)"~ _ " ' .
. ?_’3’~C’1*Qés,_Ne\v Bagalur I..e1y0L:t.,
T’ Lix’:§§ar2ijaVpuram,
” ~ Ballgalcre — 560 045.
2. ffhe Manager.
.i\.1V_c_?”‘w Inclia Assurance Co. I.,1ci..
No.23 A, 2″” Floor, 1*” Sage,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore ~– 560 038.
Respondents
M. S. Mandanna As ociates. for R2 –Absem.:
Notice to R1 ciispensed \ h V/() claied 30.7.2008)
|
E»)
n
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act. against the
judgment and award dated 18/03/2006 passed in MVC
330.2968/2004 on the file of the XIV Add]. Judge. Court of’
Small Causes Judie and MACT. Bantfalore. {SCCIr:I.i’»»J_()’.s.i0).
partly allowing the claim petition lor eompensat.ion_’pand
seeking enhancement ofcompensation. at . »
This M.F.A. Coming on for Admission–th_isVV–«..
PATEL J. delivered the following: ~ &
:J U D G M T ..
This appeal is directeld”‘ag;ainst the jl!_Jdg1neVni;*and—l’
award dated 18.03.2Q06 passled__in__M\fC’*Noi2V9fE58/2004
by the learned XIVlAddiiril031a.l:,Court of Small
Causes and MACT, referred to as
‘ Trib:,1nal’__.folrv
itlth_e~,__irnpugn.e_d– judgment and award, the
Tribunallphasl sum of Rs.68.000/– with
inte§”estA.at 6% from the date of petition tiil the date
of. against the claim made by the appellant
sLtlf;;V.__ot,”‘iis.10,00,000/–. Being aggrieved by the
said _iu”dgn1’ent and award. the appellant has presented
this ajdpeai, seeking enhancement on the ground that,
amount. awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.
3. In brief the facts of the case are:
;%WW
.5
The appeiiaiii is claiming that he is working as a
Serruriiy Guard and earning Rs.3,500/w per m*:mt.h.
That on 12.12.2003 at about 4.45 p.m.. th§.._%i’i3f)ei1’i2irii.
was going on his bicycle on My over riearfVG2inesh 7
Temple. C.T. Market. Baiigeilore ati.1?za..i:”ii;ne;”V”t.he.
driver of the auto bearings No.
same in a rash and negliigueini mariJfi_er dashed
against the bicycle of ihe eiixd duevio Viivhieh. he
has sustained injuries he has taken
treatment iI;’i iiy§.”hospitai’;”‘: of the injuries
Sustained “bftheieipijieiiiant said accident. he has
iiied avufieiainii the Tribunal against the
respondents… Ciaini-ingicoiiiipensaiion of Rs.i0.00.000/.–.The
peiitiori~h–e.d’ come up for consideration before {he
‘Tribiiiiaii”1&7i’1.ieh–_in tum. after hearing both sides and afizer
;isses«sir1g’–V’i.’he1′ oral and documentary evidence. has allowed
f the said eiaim petition in part and awarded a sum of
Rsi.6.8.000/~ as compensation under differeni heads with
interest at 6% p.a.. from the dame of petition {ill the date of
deposit. Being aggrieved V the S£iidjl.Idg1′}3€I11 and award.
and it has awarded only a sum of Rs.85.000/– under
the said head and the same is inadequate and it needs
to be enhanced. Having regard to the nat.u1’e of the
injL1ries sustained, the nature and durat.ion.._of44″the
treatment taken by the appellant, we
award a sum of Rs.4~0.000/gym towa,1″ds—-.:pai:i
sofferirags instead of Rs.35,0:QO/:3axyarhded’
Tribunal and accordingly, i’ttd_i’s-._awar’ded.V it A
5. The ‘E’ribun’a1_has awardedwa suni-0i’_ Rs3i5.0OO/A
towards ioss of amenities.Aandid_disahyi’}iytAyand the same is
inadeoudate’-ainid iti’difieed’s~,t.Vo be dednhaflneed. it is the case of the
appeiiant “that, of the head injury and others
injuries sus-tained -1_)y?hiri’i.~’in the said accident. he has taken
y_ tre_e{t’nieiit in NiAi\/EHANIS For about. three months as per iL’x.P4
‘:3tiid..dL:eVt:o’1h’e saroe. he has sustained permanent. disability
gmd-he is iijnaiyie to execute his work as in the past. But
he hasfinot adduced any evidence of the doctor or
oro’diL1ced any evidence in that regard. Therefore, takirig
into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained.
nature and ciuratioii ofi the t:reatment taken by the
If
f
-6-
appellant. and due to Which. the appeiiant. has lost”:
some amenities in his life. Therefore. we deem ifpfit to
award 21 sum of Rs.25.000/» towards loss of ainie:§i.:i’es
instead of Rs.15,000/– awarded by the
accordingly, it is awarded.
6. So far as the compenseuion €:1\V&01_if(A10E’d’by40i~hf§’,
Tribunal towards medicaid. tdwards
conveyance and loss of
income during the perifloudilei;ifeeaE.Ii:.ei1’id.:’V_~iefconeerned, the
same is jug3’i”‘an’d not Call for
interfe1’enf’:e.a.: V ‘
and eireumistanees of the
ease as statedv ab0_Ve~.,_ the’ inipugned judgment and award
Fhe uTi*ivI:3_L1nva1 is iiabie to be modified. The iota}
‘ <:di"'i1.pe:=1_$a1ionpayeibie comes to Rs.83.000/W and the break~
up is as i't:I1:aws:
Towards’ pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
‘i’e\r¢afds loss of amenities Rs. 25.000/-
‘0’71A’0wards mediea} expenses Rs. 4.000/W
-Tovvards conveyance, nourishing Rs. 5,000/-
Food and attendant charges
Towards Eoss of income during
the period of treatment: Rs. 9.000 W
‘i’0t:.a1 Rs. 83,000 V