High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri N R Nagendra vs The Orinetal Insurance Co Ltd on 18 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri N R Nagendra vs The Orinetal Insurance Co Ltd on 18 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE...N,     

AND

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE B_.SREI_§NIVASE 

M.F.A.No. 10531 A§'£.Eg__go7E(m7)E  

Between:
Sri. N. R. Nagendra; V V " _ _ ._ _
S/0. RamasWam3CW;V.EA4l'.      
Age : 42 years;  44  " _:     
No.345, RaghL1ve:1"d.ra N'ag_éu~.f,f. "  A-
Andrahallzf  Vishwafii-f:;edam {P} ,' *-
Bar1ga}or¢;§--~   . 

  A    * .  Appeliant
(By Sri. H. M. 'Rudxa Vf<Z.i1-rr_14éir_,";i'{dV.)

And: ;' ~

  ._The  I1'1_su1"ance C., Ltd.,

. :19 A

 '  C--;Q.'{).'*7f,'v~VP'eenya.
 % 'B[_.O."'N'c:._20.}x'1'00 Feet Road,

A »}e1'}aha11iA-'C1'0ss Road,
C'}=1_ik3:{asa"f1dra,
Bangalore --~ 57.

 .Srti;. N. K. Mohan,
 S/0. N.V. Krishnappa,
?D. No.42--2O RaghaVen_CiraI1agar,
H Widya.mana:1agar) Andrahalli Extn..

 



Visl1wdr1eeci2111'1 {P},

B211'agal()1*e »~ 91. 

. Resp'Q_1ic1em.s

(By Sri. C. R. Ravishankar, Adv. for R1.   
R2 sewed)

This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of  the» 
Judgment and award dated 15f'IA2"2OO6  i11f,M'VCf
No.30"/'3/2005 on the file of the}IX:Add1j-.JL1dgC."»Cguxttof '

Small Causes. Member. MACT¢7'.- 'Metr'0.pol.1t.21n,"Aka.

Bangalore. (SCCH.N0.'7). pa»rt-iy e1110wjifig th;s"Cu}21i_m I3v";e,tit.ir)_1:1s.

for compensation and '~v.,s'e.E:bking  't:1.1h'{111'c?veVfr1€1'1t: of
(:omper1sati0n with 12% interest",  " 

This appeal   v\t'd;?_"v:idr:1issi0n, this day,
N. K. Patil J, delivered the f011Ox2ir11j1.g':---  

      

Thisby. t'hf¢.t"(3:)v1:i;:)('5'r_e1t'1'()n is directed against.

the jtxd-g':ne11t. Vd3;1.e'd 15.12.2006 passed in MVC

N0.3073/xi2;1*e (SCCH~7}

 brevity]. on the ground t:h2.1t:, the

 of Rs.1.73.200/~ awarded by the '§'ribu1'1al

*._w'it1f1 i"1'1t6.re,st. at 6% per a1'mum as ag_§21i1':st', the (:}_aim of the

V":V'_A21;)]ééA11e1nt. for Rs.8.0().OOO/ ~ is i11adeqt1at'e.

L

/



The T1*ibu1'1a.l. altei' hciariiag the le221rne(.l (:(:)u11sel on boih
sides and after e(.mside1'i11g the oral and (l()(tL.1':j'"i'e11i,211j.I

evidence available on grecord, has 'c1ll()\V€j§l""lllltflil€?l_&li'if11

petition of the appellant. in  

compensation of Rs.l,7'3,2OO/1?;  v«?,.'3'~'/<3'

towards eoiitribiitory neglige'i1e.e W1-tli iinte{t'esi.~_a_i. 610/o lpelr.

armum from the date pf  of_13"ealisati()r1.
The appellant has  on the ground
that the said  the 'l'ribu1'1al is
inadequai:e"ai;.d by modifying the

j1L{Clg1'T1.C1"'i'l:'  lalfifa rd  {lied Tifibulnal.

3. W.elhpaVe~._lear11ed crounsel appearing on

bothlsides. 2

  Af:i€:f"earel'L1l perusal of the jiidgmem. and award of

T what emerges is that. the Tribunal a.ft;er

 eValu';at.i'0n of the oral and deeiimentary evidence available

" (21.1 _ie(%orcl awarded a. sum of Rs.50.000/-- inwards pain

V___:--almcl S1,lff€3I'lI'lgS._ Rs.40,000/-- towards disability and

4

J W---«---M'
J



Rs.3O,9OO/A towards leave on account of accidental

injuries is just, and reasonable and does iiotflcalll for

interference. However  1'igl1t.ly po_ini:ed__;"out1f_' _;.t"l'}.e

learned Counsel for the appellant the   e1ji"e'd» 

in awarding only Rs.85,OOO/.7 Corr9feya:1ee,

Nourishing food and At.t.enc!ai1.t eliafrges V1'1"i'edi.Qz1l.,¢X.})€1'1S€S'

and future medical   and it
requires  of the material
available on record it appellant has
produced  and he has been
 'andfisurgery was conducted.
'i'11e1'eaft:ei' on two occasions for

removal of-«..eXter'i1aI~_fizgture. The doctor, PW 2 has not

 in his 'dew.-deiicte the details of costs required for

_l;fe.__;1iu.§ai'!fl

Rs. 1.00,000/-- towards niedioa} expenses-- 

medical expenses.

5. The Tribunal has'':_ 'erred"'~.. iris  

Rs.25,000/-- towards " loss  it needs
enhancement. There iszitno the appellant has
taken t'reatnier1t'aVr1d  and another
surgery is £01'  He has suffered

pain and _si1t1'fe1jiIigs--,during_' treatment period for four
months and  -  the disability at 40%

to hi;s'vr1ght.Viinjb"'and 1T4% disability to the whole body.

Vrhjs'  the matter has not been looked into nor

  Tribunal while awarding compensation

towards." d'is'abiiit.y. T herelbre we deem it fit: to award

,fl:Rs.;44O,OOO/-- towards loss of arriezriities and disability as

\'   Rs.25,000/« axvfied by the Tribunal.

 

1'
E



6. In the light of the faetzss and Ci1'('*L1n'1s€.a1'1(:eS siiateci
above the appeal filed by the appellam.  a.1]()wecEa',_i'j:. part:

and the judgment and award dated 15-12-2006' :ir1

MVC N0.3073/2005 011 the file 9:' t4'hc%_-~}}{.--4.}fx<:1:(i*}:;: 

Court of Small Causes, Membegf, MAC'?-T,7,-.'IN/iet.1*Qpol§1::%.11 '

Area, Bangalore, is hereby m0e1ifie(i'~aI'1dVt:]3;e"b,{eaVku_p is 

follows.
1.

Towards Pain and’si;;ifte:r_in;;;s;,. Rs. 50.000/–

2. Towards e,0nveya’rree;:”

food and ;2i\’tl’:eL1fi’dar3,_t eh-a’:rg’es ,”
expezxsess * medjeai 1.00,000/–

expeiizaeefi. ‘ M

3. ‘I’oW_afds 1:)_Ss~V:’Qf Rs. 40,000/–

4. Towards. less -of on account: of Rs. 30.900/-

aet:ide11t.ai’ iljljiirieét

f eV*1″{)g;>L¢:;-sisaesabiiity 40.000 /,

Total Rs.2,60,900/– %

*”” “”””””‘””‘-_*-<-«v-v-us=».,»_

~~T1}1";:»111. the appellant is entiiied to t.0t:aI compen-sat.i0n

V':- «;}f 'Rs.2,6O,9O0/~ as 2-xgaiat Rs.1_.73.200/~ awarded by

.WMu__m_H_H__m,.M_
E

5'

" -»v–\=?if-

‘l’1*iE:)L.i1’3di. afie1′ deducting 25% {Ton} 230.900/~ i’.0wa11*c1:’s

co1’1t:rib’L1t,0ry 11eg1igen(:e.

The first 1’esp01′”:cient: W l1’1su1*au1ce__*:C<)i9ii};5§2i1y7—–_Tis

directed to deposit. the enhémeeéd _'(?0ffi'p€-yiisiationOf; 2

Rs.22,500/– (after dedmtting 25% ilfdrii 3iei.4QiotQ/_§

coritributory negligence], t,ciget'he1* wi'th_ ii11g(€1=es't'..:;1i:'6% i"1'0'1'i=i

the date of petition till f€aiiS'21.T'IO£1 within a
period of four weeks »':r£eLCeip1i of copy of the

judgment.

the séiine 1*eil_easje–d.’ in i’av0ur of the appeiie-mt

i111mediatJ’e}y;~

°°~C?_ff1’c.t;: is di’i*eet;e’d to clraw the a.wa.rd. 21ccor(ii1’1giy.

sd/~
§UDGE

Sd/-_”

Judge