High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri N Munraju vs Sri M Mohan Kumar on 2 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri N Munraju vs Sri M Mohan Kumar on 2 September, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 02"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD R'AHm:: 
MFA NO. 14551 OvF'2'O--O7(M:\/)O.VV'4"    A

BETWEEN:

AND:

SRI.N.MUNRAJU,
S/O K.NARAYANAPPA, 

AGED ABOUT 38, YEARS_,...   I  
RESIDING AT ET__H'ALAHAt,LI' VILLAGE,
SIDLAGHATTA      
CHII<:<AE.AI_I_ARuRA'-DISTRICT;  _ 

   ~ .  ...'.A.9R'ELLANT

(BY SRI 'N'«,;G.OPA1_KRISHNA,' AD\/..,,f)

 1. SEI"§E'v.WEC}!§AN..'**3--JMAF3,

, 53/0 GOWIDAPPE E' ..
' ,i_\4AJOR.._BY4.AG_E'-,._  "
NO.1AI.O,.ImAINC, 57" CROSS,
GOVINDARAEANAGAR,

 vIJAYANA.(3AR,

E  BANGALORE ~-- 560 040

 FF v20;"«._,C)'F{I'El§i,.i'AL INSURANCE CO. LTD,,

' NO.'fI::23, NEXT TO CANARA BANK,
 ~BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
 BANGALORE -- 560 024

"  REP : BY ITS MANAGER.

 RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.SOwRIRAJu, ADv., FOR R2)

>§1S-EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. ~ :..

THIS a’\PPf:f&i; IS COMING ON FOR H’EAl§1~E\lG~:::O«N

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE’ F’OLL.Q\:1{IN:€’–}_:?~v V
JuDGMENTT( 1 l

This is claimant’s app’é’alragainst._thAe:.l-ijddigrnent and

award in MVC No. on the file of

learned Addl. Civil Koiar, seeking

enhancemer1_’-.~:.”g__.

2. .4_.H..eard_._._~_ ~. «

: ‘ Alp”péti!.ar’.tc’fi*le’d”-claim before the Tribunai seeking
grant of”c9rn.per:sai:;i.o”nililhoélding the driver of the offending

bug;responsi’b’Ee:Vfor_the case of accident. The iearned

»:iViembVer«.%-otwthe Tribunal accepted proposition in the

‘H’Dl’ea’diVVndVs’_”L-.aiIdl..evidence and Concluded that the accident

‘occurred on 23–02–2004 at Anuru Tank bund road on

“CiiI.i4thaVnTani – Sidlaghatta was due to rash and negligent

bciziriving of the driver 0 the offending bus. With regard to

it “nature of injuries Tribunal has accepted the evidence that

claimant has suffered fracture of right shaft, fracture of 2, 3
and 4 metatarsal bones, compound fracture of ariizle and

ankle was dislocated as per Ex.F>4.

4. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.avo,ii)bo:/lfé: t«owa;rds,aV._,V

pain and sufferings, which is rea,sonablfe ‘4an.d.,.’I’–cownfifrin,1the T’

same. Towards treatment,-r___medVi”cal”‘expen’ses,_ etc.,”th’e.

Tribunal has awarded Rs.1’V’O,£i'()0/f’, needs to be
marginally increased Fer Lossiof amenities
the Tribunai has considered. at 20% to the
whoie body, ipa’rtici.il:avr’Kl’im-bi’and awarded a sum
of aiicuifistance, compensation the
tuowunder this head needs no
interfer’e.nce the same. The Tribunal has also

awarded surfrx”‘of.”Rs,10,000/– towards loss of income

taking the income of the claimant at

fwh~ich is reasonable and is affirmed. Towards

food, n’ouri’shment and conveyance the Tribunal awarded a

,,sumzo.f:Rs.5,000/~ which is also based on the evidence

–..V’p-roouced by the claimant and hence it is just and proper

V. ._..and is confirmed.

gilw

S. However, the Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the physical disability to consider’.–loss of

earning. Towards loss of future earning it has ttfb-eej’~b’ased

on the 50% of the disability of the limb as pet’iti,0inVe.r”‘iisi..Vs4til’l’»

able to carry out alternative occupaytioln. thef

compensation has to be based th_e”lloss’ that

suffer, due to disability oflthefiwhoie body; oi”

the claimant could be’taken—at..”Rs’.”3,QO€i/A?’per-vrnonth and
25% of it would be F-‘<s'.'a7§_f..);'–".' be Rs.9,000/-.
The multiplier.a'pplical:'bVle"iitvoujlydfjbeylw16:Viyihis gives us the
figure of as 'iconnpenswation to be awarded

u ncier ,t*i'rev h_ea.d loss' of' fut.u re' i'rlcorne.

6. ._ittheviiclaimant will be entitled to

comipensation’i’ri-th__e__following manner:

a Rs. 30,000/-

b) T_reatineri–t;:. Medical expenses, etc., Rs. 20,000/–

c) Fooizlfinourishrrient and conveyance Rs. 5,000/-