-- , Srrxfy, C1iinna111'rr;--ae,__ _____ H ,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE) 15'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 201VQ'a'.T*._
PRESENT: I
THE HON"BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PAfrIL If H.
AND . _ .
THE HON'BLE MR..msT1cE--1~i';s.KE1v:1?A;vNA 1'
M.F.A.No. 689'3'2(_3F» 2004
Between: V H H
Satish, ~. a
8/0. Late Bettaialma. .
Aged about 26 yeara,"_'. V
R/0. Avalahalli, T
Vrigonagar Pest, "
Bangalore-49.
....Appe11ant
[By Sri. K'-..Ve'r1'ka*:e '(§§mjdav,44VAd}k'c¢a'te}
And:
- W"/"0. Sf}. Narayan,
._ ~ Aged aabe.u't._40 years,
I «/.0; e'DetIasan.dzfg1,
~K.'£z,Pu'ram« ._}1"Qb11,
Ba._nga1Qre-550 036.
The Divisional Manager.
'Me/:5. New India Assurance
CQ.;"_Ltd.,
_ 'IN()'.33/A, II Floor,
H i§St.age, P.B.N0.3883,
2¢%}%~2
.2' """""""""'""""""
§'
" V' '=R3(a} an.d'.R3§b} served]
Indi1'dI1agar._
Bangal0re--38.
3. Sri. B.H.SeethararI1.
Since dead represented by his LRs.
3(a) Sri. Pranesh _
S/0. Mr. Chiranjeevi. :
3(b} Sri. Vasudev.
S/0. Mr. Chiranjeevi.
Both are R/at. No. 70/4,
5"' Cross, Byatarayanapura;"W
Mysore Road, * '
Bangalore»26.
4. The DiVisio'na1«Manager V .
M/s. Oriental In}3u_ranCe Ltd...
D.N0.6. S;rini§«_''asav'Mansi@_r1;*~. '' '
{$0.364/1, .;Oith :13' Nl>1in,"}I_I Block.
Jayanagatf,
Bangaloresl'
...Resp0nden.ts
[By sn. R.Jlaipi*a.kash,llAdvdeate for R2;
Sri. S,'-.f..Hegd"e Muikiiand. Advocate for R4:
Notice to P1 dispensed with V/(}. dated 02/ 02/2010;
*=l¢=i¢****
is filed U/S £730] of MV Act against the
jlgidgmtemt award dated: 08/06/2004 passed in l\/IVC N0.
3298/200.2 on the file of the XIX Addl. Small Causes Judge.
. MAC? Ba'n'gal0re. [SCCH--17). partly allowing the claim
Vpet.ition" fol' Compensation and directing the 3*"-1 respondent
._l1eA:r*ei__r1 to””pay the same and further dismissing the claim as
‘against the respondents 1.2 and 4 herein and the appellant
_ =_b”e_rei1’1’prays to set aside the dismissal of the liability against
l”t.hei: 4″* respondent: and to fix the liability against. the
respoiiderits and furthei’ to enhance the compensation.
X
“,3
A..a_…..~««=»
5/
_ ._.«r
I ‘H.’-«
I
5
This M.F.A. eoniing on for Hearing
N.K. ?A’1’IL J. delivered the following:
uuoGME~3«_
This appeal by the appellant
the impugned Common jnd,§”m_entA”‘and
08/06/2004 passed file
of the XIX Additional and Motor
.Aajdent <ngnn§3 Tm§fifiaLfpsgggauae (SCC}¥17L
(hereina1fteri'reil§:rredl5l'tn: ._ for short).
the Tribunal has
awarded'.alsu1l11.e1':.§~1lV,2vS§,l0§Q_/ with interest at 7% p.a.,
from the dateV"o.f_fpet-itilon till its deposit, fixing the
'*1jabi'l.ity 2,against, the"'UW11er of the offending vehicle, now
1"_€ll}';\lT_€llS'€I%l"§!§;(l'vlfijjhis legal representatives, as against the
the appellant for a sum of ?6,00_.OO0/-.
accfotilnt of the injuries sustained by him in the road
T l'traffi€,::5aecident.
3. in brief, the facts of the Case are:
The appellant is claiming that he was aged
23 years at the time of the accident, hale anti 2′
working as Cashier in a Wine/’i”S*hop and’l’~e_arning’0’v.,
?4.500/– per month. Thatpat
15.2.2002 appellant was pillion in
the motor cycle bearing when
they came near Mataclahallif’ Bricks
Factory, on Old , “i§l:iel:¥£…B_anéaio1″e-Kolar. at
that time, being driven
by its manner came from
opposite”di1’ection«’.an:i against motorcycle. due
to which, he fel1’rio\>ifn’.and sustained communited
both f1*ontal bones, sinuses and both roofs of
orbit, cornxnunited fracture of nasal bone, nasal septum,
burst f1~ac:,aiie floor of right orbit, fracture of lateral wall
._of left inaxillaiy sinus and small non haernorrhagic
cp~__c:_l3ntu;’sion of bilateral basifrontal lobes. lost his two
“teeth and other injuries. for that. he has taken
treatment in Manipa} hospital from 15.2.2002 to
1.9.2.2002, in Abbayya Hosptial from 2022002 to
24.2.2002 and then at Trinity Hospital from
to 6.3.2002, under gone operation of Orif of ”
facial bones with plates and screws”a’1.d a’lsoVt1’i’idervventVi’».,
plastic surgery. In all he has tlr’eap’t1ne11t’
inpatient for 17 days and» spjezlpt
towards medical expe1_1.ses,.Al””‘eo§*rffeyaa1oefiA ‘and’ other
incidental charges. On sustained
by the has suffered
permanent has assessed the
disability Therefore, appellant
has fiiedual the Tribunal claiming
cornpenvsatioln pagainst. the respondents. The said claim
.0if”petitli-oni.j’had._comevlmiip for consideration before the
after hearing both sides and
afte1*-.._assess_i:iig the oral and documentary evidence, has
‘allowed -f.:.1’ie said claim petition in part and awarded a
_.’su’rn. …:?1,29,000/~ as compensation under different
heads with interest at 60 p.a., from the date of petition
,,,,,,,, «,2»,-
~..’.–r–»*”””‘
6
till its deposit. fixing the liability on the oxvne1**’jof:’f’the..A4
offending” vehicle. Not. being satisfied with V’
of compensation awarded by the ‘”l-“rib’unali..Atbe
has presented this appeal, seelting_p_enhan.ee~meni–:’.ofW
Compensation.
4». We have hea.:rd__the’.’*l’e’ai’ified\p”counsel”appearing
for appellant and for
respondent ‘and the offending
vehicle died. appeal and his
legal on record as R–3(a]
and {b} unrepresented.
55;» _Afte’rV.,Vper{isal of the materials available on
impugned judgment and award
passed by-«theA’.i’Tribui1al so far as it relates to the case in
_ hand, it..__’e’mAerAges that, the Tribunal in the light of the
:ivelVle_’set:tled law laid down by the Apex Court and this
has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of
T “the offending Vehicle and directed him to satisfy the
/5′
24:,
,»-‘ ,_,__W..~—-~~~-:r
; ~–~”-F”
I
§/
award amount, which is just and proper and it. does.f’no’t_
call for interference by this Court.
6. The Tribunal after as-s’e’s’sing
documentary evidence, taking into”eonsid’erat.ion”
nature of injuries sustained, t:1i~§*w.r1ature. of
the treatment taken hasd’aW’aErded a
sum of ?50,000/~ tovxdrdardsd _.:arid:V.sufferings and
$55,000/– conveyance,
nourishingid which is just
and for interference.
has erred in not
awarding reasoiiabiei cornpensatiori towards Eoss of
Viiieoine the period of treatment, ioss of amenities
1 tojdisability and therefore, it needs to be
e11h’a,11ced.~.’:”‘ Further, the Tribunai has erred in not
iawarding any compensation towards loss of marriage
1:-rospects and towards future medical expenses and
“therefore, it needs to be awarded. It is not in dispute
that; on account of the injuries sustained by the
8
appellant, he has taken t,reatrner1t. as inpatient.
days, underwent one surgery and in View of iVr1_ft1ri’eS..l”‘ 1 V’
sustained by the appellant, he ha’s”‘suffe1{ed
disabiiity and the Doctor has the»d_ipsabilit3i:l”atvliV
32.4% to the face and 1 /451 same the
whole body disabiiityand to
8.125% and it is rounded disability is
permanent to suffer this
disability out would affect his
marriage that, appellant might
have talien’ followA:_}’up”~tr’eait;Inent and bed rest for four
months _ The lfioetor h-asvdeposed that, appellant has to
i;1ndergol’i”one.p_ more operation for removal of implants
Aland itliar”-«.tha’t:fpurpose he may require considerable
aIno=..intV.,” all these aspects of the matter have not
]been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal While
1~__laxlA?a1’ding Compensation. The Tribunal has assessed the
“‘ineome of the appellant. at ?’3,000/s per month, the
same is just and proper and we accept the same. Having
_”,,,.,…..V,i.
‘*»’.:\
regard to the facts and circumstances of {he ca1sei,.f”~we._
award a sum of ?12,000/- towards loss V’
during the period of treatment. for “four.
or ?6,000/~. ?30.oo0/- towards iohss__o’flV_é’1’l111erii1tAies
urihappiriess and disability’=::ii1,stedd’—- o’f.V:”?léFCO(l:/~.
?25,000/~ towards los’s~.,of a sum
of $10,000/» towards In all the
appellant is ildiiojtstxlv’mo:)rhpensation of
?’1,82.000/» ,_iip__ iiiilows:
Towards;iV’pai11iA3i.r;1;ds’i:ifferirigs’ 1′ 5o.000/-
Towards medieai’V.ex_penses;-ponveyance, E’ 55,000/-
nourishing food andéi!’tendlar1tJ.eharges
Towards loss of marri’2i.ge,.Efiiiosépects ? 25.000/–
Towards loss “of. _i-ncomle-” during the ? 12,()()()/–
period of treatrn”en_t
* «-Towards; loss_ of axiieiiiiies and disability ‘<' 3o.00o/-
in 3.' ;1'o'w'ard s 1" i,1_"u,_1re riiedical expenses 3' 1 0, 000/
I
Total 3 1,82,000/-
8. .-_ACe.o”rdingly. the appeal is allowed in part and the
L.i111pV1_1gned dd judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in
. ‘M_v’£fC -5’No.3298/2002 stands modified. awarciirig the
_;;grnpensatioi1 of ?”‘1,82,000/- instead of ?l,29,000/-. The
/,
; »-»-“–“””‘””W_”H_M’
go
E0
enhanced eonlpensation comes to 353.000/– with inte1″est at
6% p.a.. from the date of petition till its realisation.
The respondent Nos. 3(a) and
representatives of the deceased Qwnetf 0f*’t.he” dd”
vehicle are directed to de}:$’n«sit:’_A_’t””:the’~. A”e_tii1et1aK_Cedt1»t.:
compensation of ?53,000/ ir1terest,_vV{J§rtttt.tr1’*~wth’tee
weeks from the date of -eopy of thtsiejudgment
and award. . .4 V
The enhattcfid released in
favour of me’ deposit by the
owner :;”::1§;0ffe’i’tdittgA’ “‘vVei1jVic1e by his legal
represetitatifires V’ ‘ff ~~ ,, VA d A
Drattf S aeeo1*ding1y.
I w_U ddddd sg/e
JUDGE
Saga
geese