IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 222*» DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 21010
BEFORE T 'T
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENWA_.ss
Miscellaneous First Appeal No..»~1.1263 2
Between
Sri V Thimmarayappa
S / O Venkatappa
Aged 80 Years A _
R/at. Avaiahalli, Bidamhaili ::~1o':;»1i ,
Vifgonagar Post, ' 'M * X } n V'
Banga101"e--49 V
{By:VSri}Shrif)a(i:'V.'L_:"3i'i§1stri';§ Adv.)
1. CM Kuber _ e
_ S/O<.S1'"i Mails-shappa
" No.26,"'3}"dMaii1, 18% Cross
15 R6663';-«Layout,
_ 'i~?a:nAamurthynagar,
T. Vfitangagoge -- 560 016.
The ---New india Assurance Co. Ltd.,
'*I).OI 1, No.40, Lakshmi Complex,
" Vanivilas Hospital,
K R Road Fort,
Banga10re--56O 002
By its Manager
Respondents
(By Sri. S V Hegde Mulkhand. Adv. for R2,
notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act agaiii_s’t.the
judgment and award dated: 26.7.2008 passed. i1’1.fl1\(TV_C
No. 3087/2007 on the file of the IX Add}. J=;.itigf:f._*
of Small Causes, Member, MACT–7, Metropolitan-Ai*eae, ‘
Bangalore, {SCCH.No.7), partly alloWi;i:»g..’A elai_rn~
petition for compensation and seeking ‘.enhancement of
compensation. = r 1
This appeai coming”o1<.1_ forl"Ad1nissi,vo'n_;tthisil
the Court, delivered the follovjiilgc
A
This appeal :l.¢".'g§.1aimant seeking
enhancement . .. at I
2. vlliislllladrnitted and with the
oor1s:vc’~;.1-‘1t._0:1″ “appearing for the parties. it
is takenllluph
3; grief faets .o_f__tl’1e case are:
_ ‘<'I4'vl"i_8'_."Et.t:51'..26.04.2007 when the Claimant was riding
'thesoootierftiearing registration No. KA 03 E 5653 on
Hoskote ¥ Bangalore road near checkpost, Kattamnellur
"ll a lorry bearing registration No. HR~«38–4l6 came
léfrom behind in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against his scooter, as a result he fell down and
5%
sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim
petition before MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation
of Rs.10_00,000/– and the Tribunal has fawarded
compensation of Rs.1,16,600/- with interest' at
4. As there is no dispute r_ega,-rdi7ng-,oc.c’urrence.,:nf
accident, negligence and Vliiabilit}}’7o_f”‘the
offending Vehicle the onl3__f:l:””-}:3:oitit thatlllrerfiains for
consideration is:
W’lietl1er the awarded by
the_Tr’ibun_ai is jL_1_st__an.d reasonable or does it
call for.;enhance’Injent?.,.a– ‘
5. ” learned Counsel appearing for
the partjiesjgandj judgment and award of the
Tribunal all V.,Vgrr1 of’ View that the compensation
thevvillriibunal is not just and reasonable, it
_is__ lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
enhanCe.d}’ A
_ it claimant has sustained the following injuries:
i) Fracture of clavicle:
ii] Fracture of fibula;
3?.
iii] Fracture of 531 metatarsal, dislocation;
Injuries sustained by him are evident from ‘wound
certificate, discharge summary, case sheet,_;K”rays_¥’
supported by oral evidence of the
doctor examined as PWS and? 1 .resp’ectively.
Immediately after the acci-ilpent he was 2
GGV€1″I’llT1Q~f1t Hospital and .aid_:treatment he
was shifted to where he
was treated as inpa.tie’nt,:’foVr’ Operation was
conducted’ treatment after
disch.a’rge,’p”~..f”‘£5W: has stated that
claiIn–ant inpatient in Bowring Hospital
wound suturing was done, claimant
got VVdeforri1ity_,.of right clavicle, restriction of right
‘ shoulder_’moveme’nts and restriction of movement of left
ll tanirleifpl:-l’eV..assessed 15% disability to right upper limb,
28″/éclltio the left lower limb and 19% to the whole body.
his cross examination he admitted that even if
clavicle bone fracture is united in a mal position, it does
not cause functional disability if there is no restriction
$35
of movement in left shoulder joint. He further admitted
that fracture was in the middle of the clavicle bone_._
7. Considering the nature of injuries
awarded by the Tribunal towards pain
on the lower side and it is deservédtito the’:
another sum of Rs.lO,0OVf§_/~»__Vandr-I,
under this head.
8. The claimant medical bills.
Considering was ..infi:atient in Bowring
Hospital V l Rs. 1 O, 000/ ~ towards
as against Rs.5,000/~
awarded by the
3’_:Cehside”ri«ng__i.’vthe year of accident. age of the
d his occupation the Tribunai has rightly
dd income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.rrs..
Nat1;.re’of injuries suggests that he was under treatment
V. rest at least for a period of four months and I
award Rs.12,()0O/– towards loss of income during laid
fiw
up period as against Rs.9,000/– awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. Considering the nature of injuries and_;_.ofA _
treatment Rs.10,000/– awarded byxv.
towards loss of amenities is on tl”ie..jllower.. sidleliand-_il
award Rs.20,000/~ under ‘f.l_1is__headV. V
11. Claimant is agledfi abotiltlg’l”l*h’e”rnultip1ier
applicable to his age doctor has
assessed limb and 28%
to left whole body. Hence
tota1:.;ldisabilii;y t_hei2lvlhole body is assessed at
13% ” “assessed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly ..,l”los’s loflwlfuture income works out to
[I7{sv.él,l(l)OO/~ X 13% X 12 x 17) and it is
awarded against Rs.57,600/– awarded by the
Tribunal;
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following
Compensation:
35″‘
1) Pain and suffering Rs. 45,000 /-
2) Medical & incidental
Expenses Rs. 10,000/–
4} Loss of income
During treatment period Rs. l2.,O’0–Q’/_–‘
5] Loss of amenities Rs. 2:0-,.Q’QQ_’f
6} Future loss of income Rs. *
Total p R§}’pi’,”rS6§5a_o/:o. l V’ .
18. Accordingly the appeal is
judgment and award of thelis to the
extend stated here1n’aljoye*i_V:h entitled for
total compensation H _ of at / — against
Rs. 1, with interest at
6% of Rs.49,960/–,
rounded ‘loft from the date of claim
petitionxtill the d._at’ev oilrealisation.
jlhjlnsuranlce Company is directed to deposit the
._ Vicvornpensation with interest within two
‘from the date of receipt of a copy of this
” jctldgnient. Out of the same 75% with proportionate
interest is ordered to be invested in ED. in the name of
H the claimant in any nationalised or schedule bank for a
3%’
period of six years and remaining amount is ordered to
be released in favour of the claimant.
N0 order as to cost. _ __
.Ju&ga*%’
Vb/–