IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03% DAY OF' SEPTEMBER, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. AA A
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEI3A.V..NAGAI?{ATHNA*"*AI A' _
M.F.A.N0.71o'4»/E007
C/w.M.F.,A.NO.7.1-015,/2'0Q7{MV]~....
M.F.A.N0..'_7104/2007' ; "
BETWEEN:
RA'DINEsI'I;s/OH T RAJAPPA
AGED .. A
CONSULTA}\TT._E'N_GIN.EER AND CONTRCTOR,
R/A1: HAN2?:K0DI,I'I:III,LAGE,
_ .SOMWA_RP.ET 'I'ALUK.
.. KODAGU" DISTRICT.
' V. A A' " APPELLANT
ASSOCIATES)
1 K M CHANDRASHEKAR
A 'A s'/"0 MARIBASAPPA
. PLANTER,
KEREHALLI VILLAGE.
NEAR SHANIVARASANTHE
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER %
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MADIKER1.
3 M s SELVAO ALXEAS CI-iiDA.1\/IBARA.
SHANIVARASANTHE,
c/0 K.M.CI-IANDRASHEKAR
KEREHALL: VILLAGE,
NEAR SHANIVARASANTHE
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DSETRICT,
4 H- R SURESH
s/0 H.T.RAJAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS, . g
PLANTER AND s0cIAL'wjGRKER; ._ A
HANACODU VILALGE, *-
SOMWARPET TALIJK. ' ~ G A _
A' --- RESPONDENTS
[By Srjizfl .G’FoR’%m’ V$ri.P B RAJU FOR R2
R3 A A
M.F.A.NG~.G71o3;’2t3o-7(iv;§jj
HR GANESH s/0 H T RAJAPPA
_ AC:ED”3_2″YEARS
,¥>LA1xJTE;R’
R/,0 HANAKODU VILLAGE
SQMWARPET TALUK
KQDAGU DISTRICT
, . APPELLANT
A [33ysri:1~:EGDEAss0cIATEs)
AND:
I K M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MARIBASAPPA
‘B.
_3_
PLANTER
KEREHALLI WLLAGE
NEAR SHANIVARASANTHE
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
2 THE ERANCI-I MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURA.NC’E
COMPANY LTD A
MADIKERI
3 M S SELVAC ALIAS CHIDAMEARA O ” ”
SHANIVARASANTIIE ‘ 1. ” = ‘
C/O K.M.CHANDRASHEKAR
KEREHALLI VILLAGE: .0 *
NEAR SHANIVARASANTHE
SOMWARPET TALUK ”
KODAGU DISTRICT _ _
4 H R SURESH S/0 T=RAJAPR.A.., ‘ I
39 YEARS ‘1 I i
PLANTER AND SOCIAL WORKER
H1ANAC.OBU.1VILl;AG-E’ A
SOMWARPIET TAI ,UK s
* ‘ RESPONDENTS
[By B R2)
‘ _ 11./1I«”AEfI’LED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
A-JU_DGME1\¥’T AND AWARD DATED: 14.02.2007 PASSED
IN MVC’ –NO};7V3/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFF__ICER,_ FAST TRACK COURT & MACT, KODAGU,
DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOVVING THE” CLAIM
” OPETITEON FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
“EI\Ti*iANCME “F FOR COMPENSATION.
C V’ ‘”Nagarathna J., delivered the foiiowingz
This Appeal Coming on for admission this day.
9;…
J’UDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the common
judgment and award passed in M.V.c.No.73/2001-and
M.V.C.No.69/2001 disposed of on
MACT, Madikeri.
2. These two appeals are
seeking enhancement of comgfiensathion ‘V
the said common judgment and in re’s’pe’et of the
accider1ta§£'”s1rstained'”‘by'”them in a road traffic
accident that 28.11.2000 at about 8.30
p.m. Vwvhent”the’ elafimtantzappellants were on their way to
Vil.1age I-‘I’ar1:’–1’C’odu from Somwarpet on their
No.KA. 12 /E– 5098.
‘V 3. elairnant in M.V.C.No.73/O1 H.R.Ganesh Was
‘..f..riding the motereycie and the claimant in
‘ O1 H.R:Dinesh was proceeding as a pillion
When they were driving towards Kibbetta, the
driver of a Mamthi Van bearing No.KA. 12 / M-9636 came
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
EL
/4
motorcycle. As a result, they fell down and sustained
injuries. Ganesh was shifted to Government Hospital
Somwarpet for first aid treatment and then he.-.___was
shifted to NIMI-IANS Bangalore and Wthen.”j–..:’to
K.R.H0spita1, Bangalore, wherein he was
days. Similarly, Dinesh was alsci’s}1’iftsg1′..to
Hospital at Somwarpet and thereafter. he too_1:Atre.atrnent’~.
at a Hospital at Bangalore. shad V
suffered permanent’ disability t–:’:.Qni’~..paccountll’ of the
accidental injuries, they t1e€ili~»ll[respective claim
petitions seeking c1oinpen’sation”on various heads.
4. After servicef._lof__:”notice by the tribunal, the
respondents ._appea1l'”edb””.and filed their statement of
l V. “‘-obj’ec{tio”ns and contested the matter. in support of their
‘ let in their evidence both oral as
wel-l.__as__doci::rnentary. On the basis of the material on
:”r.ecorci.*..- ” the tribunal awarded compensation of
as-.1.i;ts’s7,6oo/– in lVl.V.C.No.69/01 and Rs.2,85,300/– in
,..1’vl.V.C.No.73/01 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date
of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the
said award the claimants have preferred these appeals.
fly,
5. We have heard the learned counsel forhthe
appellant and the learned counsel for the
insurance company.
6. insofar as M.F.A.No. 7 103 it concerned ;’ ‘i ._
submission of the learned lco.ui1.sel for._ the is it
that considering the the
evidence let in, the id a meager
compensation. charges and
transportation.”cliarVge:s:’:as on the head of pain
and no compensation
was awlardedl expenses. He further
submits that._:VtheT’ appellant was earning a sum of
llV.”‘R.sq.;i~;60ip;I»;’l-put lthelvsame was not believed by the
Itri1<1un'a1:°andfrneager compensation has been awarded
onthe loss of future earning capacity.
Insofar as IvIF'A.l\§"o.7l04/'O7 is concerned, learned
o'oun'sel for the appellant submits that the award made
i the head of loss of income during the laid up period,
attendant charges, transportation charges as well as
future earning capacity are on the lower side and that
7*…
no compensation has been awarded towards
nourishment and diet charges and that the award made
under pain and suffering, loss of amenities is aiso on
the lower side which calis for interference
appeals.
8. Per contra, learned coun_sel.__for .”the”‘iii.’nsurance_V
company, supporting the judgment
that in the instant case; -considering’ the of ” it
injuries and the evidence on-record, thetribunal has
awarded a just and proper’ which does
not call for inte1″fe.rence._in–these appeals. Having heard
the counsel on the only point that arises for
our45consi_deration__i_sas to whether the appellants are
V”. en’tit1ed_ to ‘addi_tional Compensation.
as the appellant I-I.R.Ganesh in
CfJ’viFA..,No.7i03/O7 is concerned, from the material on
d record, it is evident that he sustained grade I open
fracture of shaft of left femur, fracture of mandible,
coxnminuted fracture of right clavicle, deep lacerated
wound over anterior abdominal wall with peritoneum
fir»
-3-
exposed, pneumothorax on left side, concussive head
injury with mild diffuse cerebral edema and _.deep
lacerated wound on the face and dorsum of right
Three doctors were examined to prove that
treatment and they have stated’ that p_t’her;e
disability to the whole body. the_-v_,A.sametV
consideration and taking the it the
appellant was engagedwiifi ._ and lvooking after
coffee plantation, a sum has to be
assessed as” 2: the appellant.
Accordingly; ciihsabvivlity and by applying
appropriate and considering the fact
that the appeI_la_nt..’was years at the time of accident,
of..ppRs.éV4,'(§()VO/~ which is rounded off to
as compensation on the head of
loss-.__of earning capacity. Similarly, on the head
“of attendant and transportation charges a further sum
,.’t’of’Rs:”10,000/~ is awarded. As far as pain and suffering
it -isconcerned, considering the nature of injury sustained
by the appellant an additional sum of Rs.25,000/~ is
awarded. On the head of loss of amenities, a further
)’;.,,
N194
sum of Rs.10,000/– is awarded and considering the fact
that he had undergone surgery and there wp’p””Were
implants, a sum of Rs.l0,000/– is awarded
medical expenses and thereby
enhanced compensation of
carry interest at the rate o’f,_(_3% froIn””the:’_dat%e.’.of
claim petition till realisationf”7lflieu avvxarduilrnade on the
other heads are left of the said
enhanced corngiensationlda Vp’Rs”.5O,OOO/- with
proportionate _ €s_ha1l.f §blelV:’deposited in any
nationialised.:lianl{§vf’or:l’a1fl’linitialperiod of five years and
the appellant– »»i:e~ntitled to draw periodical
interest onluthe said deposit. The balance compensation
if released tothe appellant.
to, the appellant in M.F.A.No.7104/O7 is
cori.cerned,l’.ii’rom the material on record it is evident that
V”‘heiphad..-sustained fracture of right squamous temporal
” . ‘ ‘xyall-,*’ sphenoid sinus–post traumatic collections, left
~»v-parietal/parietowfrontal chronic subdural haematorna,
right parietal cortical focal calcifications–gran1.rle
umayous and concussive head injury with fracture of
fin.
-10-
right squamous temporal bone following which he has
severe sensory neural hearing loss in the right ear and
and it has come in the evidence that there was of
hearing. Considering his qualification as
Engineering and that he was working 9
and also doing contract work,
income to be at Rs.5,ooo/–._ andflthe ‘for if.
permanent disability at the
appropriate multiplier._..’:of_’ Rs.23,400/–
rounded off to Rs.25,:GG9h/:3 is the head of
loss addition, a sum of
Rs.6,000/l-« is loss of income during
the pgperiodh’ treativnent and an additional sum of
is awarded towards attendant charges and
tgharges. A further sum of Rs.25,000/~ is
awarded the head pain and suffering and an
sum of Rs.30,000/~ is awarded towards loss
uglll-ot’–».arn.enities and a sum of Rs.l0,000/- is awarded
….tswards nourishment and diet charges. Considering
V the fact that the appellant had undergone surgery and
there were implants and for removal of implants, future
fie»
-11-
medical expenses is required. On re–appreciation of
evidence on record we feel that towards medieal
expenses a further sum of Rs.25,000/-
awarded thereby makingfitidae total
«Liv , ~
X, ~- Rs.I,33.000/-. The enhanced (i3QInpe1i1’sat1or;.. A,,é_;;_,M_,: 56, I B
Vt.
carry interest at 6% pa. fro’In.__.theAVdate of £5;
till realisation. Out of the ‘Co_n1pen’sation a Eyv: mg
sum of Rs.1,00.00() interest shall
be deposited in an initial
period of fiVe§’.yeafs._r_and appeliantis entitled to draw
periodiioaiv Tjhefibalaneev it compensation shall be
released. to-t1’V1e– ~ .
11. It is”‘rnadve (:1_ea.1f in both the cases, with regard
_ to medic-a:1Vv_expenses there would be no interest
/(he amounts. %
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed
in part.
S>E=