IN THE HIGH COURT up KARNATAKA, 3Ab;c;;2xLQ~Rt;"1'
DATED THIS THE 7?}! DAY 0? AUGUS5I';4_:2QO§: . J}
PREsENT
THE HOIWBLE MRS. JUstIf:cE 1i2:AmuLA%32&~::é'.Li§uré'; V
THE HON'BLE MR. ,.m{ST1GE"B; 'V}.s;§'EE1N1vASE' Gbwm
MISCELLANEOUS Ffiiésr 2005 (Mv)
BETWEEN : % " V
Sn'. Gurapp_.-':-1" 44 _
S/0 Sri. » é
Age 25 . "
Occupafio:i:"}Z1;5ver 7'; ' _ .
R/0 N0I35[25, .. '
Arabic Collage Post _
Bangalore-560 045 , . V APPELLANT
{By Acfvocate)
1 sz§fi.c;a::cgh
" AS/<3 Lats -M. Gangaiah
Age: Majqrgs' Occ: Business
R/u..N'o,19/2, 'C' Cross
Munesiiwara Block
A " r»;..Q. Halli
' Akfiangaiom
K The Divisional Manager
' " United India Insurance
Company Limited
Divisional Oficc, No.8
330.143] 144, CKN Chambers
1*'? Floor, 15' Main Road
Seshaciripuxam
IE.'-anga1o1'e--56G 020
(By Sri. M. Arm: Ponnappa, Advacéiflf: : _
(Respondent no.1 is served)
This MFA is filed under ussrvciign i73{.1)_ of MV Act
against the Judgment AWaI’fi”d.a:.{edL’-18.7.2O(“)5A passed in
MVC N0.275/2004 011 i;h,€ ‘fi16I_0f Small Causes
Judge and Member, Agrea, Bangalore,
(S(3CH–15), partly ‘ -. Athe’ petition for
compensation arid s¢ek.fing.efi21anéement Git’ compensation.
This £\’1’1″§Ps..cé;.ff1i;1g oQ_1.;:..__f’6r Aif1_1;fiission this day, MANJULA
CHELLUR J. 2 defifltm thgz ‘Tfc_i3_Qwing:
7,fJ§hammNT
‘-………_..’ _…._…_….
It gzictj in dis§$11%.§”tfi_éi£.’.the appcilant herein met with
an accident when he was travelling in 3 car
‘agaltzwzfc to Hfiéékote. Accarding to him the car was
I_.§IiW£?fi in a rash and negligent manner by its
d:*ivs;i¥}M ‘I’_héré;f.fc$ra, the vehicle met with an accident as it
.t;ji:as11et:I*~ against a bridge. The evidence on recoxd Wmilci
~ sustained fizacmre of right ulna styloid and had
“*T’.”taI{en treatment at a private hospital initially, than shifted to
” B-.R. Aznbedkar Medicai College Hospital at Bangalore.
The ‘doctor who examined the aypeflant to
disabiiity was not the doctor verho treated him
fracture of the right uma stymid. “”‘Ease{§: {mg
having regard to the evidence give¥20Vb§’#A_A
of the appellant who has staied:”‘£i.:}at fer the V
accident, appellant Was__worId1;g.e1js.a”:1;ivef on a
monthly salary of Rs.4,Ei01()j/A– “-if Iégaffau per day, the
Tzibunal awarded towards un-
iiquidated u
Pain and Rs. 20,000/-
Disabilizyz ~ % 20,0001-
Loss ofa11f£e::1_’iii:i-:*t,s=. “éf.;}fc_ ” 5,000/-
Med,ie:a’iexpenses’–..AVV_ ””’ 5,000/-
‘¥Q0s:~swof the laié. up peried at
;’é1teVF«Es.”3,_(}QO/ – for 3 months 9,06%] –
total: 59,000,!-
, ‘The appellant being aggrieved with the quantum of
.___ c(: mpe1:1satio11 has approached this Court seeking
“»enhancemez1t of compensation on the gxound that he is not
6
of fact, Rs.20,{)G0]- was awarded towards disability and
again Rs.5,§OO/- towards loss of amenities. £11 fact, the
compensation has to be: tawanis loss of amenities ‘life
because of the disability sustained by the
both put togteizher comes to Rs.2S,00O/~
the actual disability suficmd by
nathing on record to Show thaigitlie oi§<3:1A€1*Vl1as
senrices of the izijumd ap;)<:3.}aI:i–vL.liiE:-zausichz If i
he had been attcndixzgtlfge wo'i*l(* owi*fi,i"'dt':':Fi11ite1y it
czamiot be terminationii liar to disability.
Thcrcfcgitt, wt} oiftin: i:.;:_iiL1ioz1. no separate compensation
ceuld be; less of futum e:a:mings.
” ithe z*igizt_i}ia1nd:”was involved in the accident, almost
months he must. have been away from his
A ié.:sz<3~fi&i£ioii§?llhai:i'Vfl'r*ibunal has awarded only 3 moths salary as
lossguaf jx3_,é:€)ztiié.A Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion
Zanothcr 3 months salary i.e. Rs.9,()0fl/- would
_ Aimee-,.t ends ofjusficta.