ta', ''
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA.
DATED THIS THE zen: DAY OF NovEMB.%Ǥ"R';'EN_TSQ f ' _
[By Sri. CR. Ravishankar, Adv. for
This MFA is filed U/S 173{..1.).__of i\=_:/IV'A*et,» Vdagains-tn A'
the Judgement and award dated 26,A()2.2_Q0'A7' vpasaed
MVC No.15-47/2006 on the file "of the' XI'~Addl..AJ'i_id§ge-,.
Member, MACT, Metropolitan'-_ Area,-'.t.Bangalore
(SCCH--12), partly al1oWing_'~..1;_he "c1..airn petition" for"
compensation and seelring _ enhano'ement of
compensation. . V
This appeal this day the
Court deliveredythe followingz' " --
:C'1ai:'nafii1t ap;peai&as'sai1ing the judgment and
award dz'-.p'assed.V: No. 1547/2005 by MACT,
Banga1oret4°dated.V';26a2§2t)07. It is contended by the
that hetisav Civil Contractor and he had been
returning back on 16-7-2005 by
Tar.1iavor'e:I*::'2Xjoress and after alighting at Bangalore City
Station at about 7.15 p.m. he was walking near
Station towards Autostand, and at that point of
V V. tiirne an autorickshaw bearing Registration
4/,.,
h,e,e*e.s: *
No.KA--02-A--6416 dashed from behind on account of
which he was knocked down and
injuries. On account of the injuries sustained
petition was filed under Section
Vehicles Act praying for VawardiIA'tgt_A.'of
compensation. Respondentsjiappearedi 0
the claim petition. . *j:*iItj:bu_t1ei ‘Abeieiét of the
pleadings framed examined
as P.W.1 and Kumar who
treated EX.P.1 to R9. On
the evidence on record,
petition in part and awarded
a tots;-1..compensation.’Vof iRs.74,000/- under the foilowing
0 ‘ ._Medica.1 and Incidental expenses ?’1 0, 000/ –
Conipensatiijori permanent disability ?25,000/–
Pain, injur~;e’s and suffering ‘<"15,000/-
Loss ofincome during treatment period 3 6,000 / —
._ "«._"mss"'t;3f amenities in future life ?"'10,000/-
. Ftittire medical expenses ?" 8,000/-
Total ?74.000 /-
Ck/.
The discharge summary which is at Ex.P.7 would reflect
that claimant had undergone surgery and doctorrmxirgho
treated the claimant was examined as
clinical examination of claimant by the
was noticed that Claimant was havingzi A I 4′
1 A healed scar n.o’ti<;_ed o'vei"' the region
and extending tolposteriorV"asp'eot the left
2 Tjoint line of left
3 B1_tro';:~hanterié:1_'test positive
A
__ shortened by 1 cm.
on rs»
” “Move_inents”-of’the left hip are restricted by
degreleswin all direction. All movements
V areupainful terminally.
_ -lAvoid squatting, sitting cross legged.
it estiolc while walking.
has opined that claimant is having
Jtpegrmanent disability to left Lower limb at 50% and to
Whole body 15%. The suggestion made to the witness
fig,/__’_/._
that claimant had not suffered any disability has “been
denied. In the cross–examinatior1 it is elicited
claimant was suffering from Nephrological
had been treated at Manipal Hospit’a’i’earlier.;lilotvjeper’
the suggestion that doctor
account of close “the: ‘had
assessed the disability’ in expeelsshibcpenl ‘denied and it
is also denied by -.lcplairiiantupfi§ufatn_’_1.Nephrological
problems will, The
insurer has opinion nor they
have disprove this medical
evidence.” the same, I am of the
corisid-ered vlicw’thatlV’there is no justification for not
any_ compensation under the head loss of
considering 15% disability. Though it
i is conte:r;”ded«:l”‘in the grounds of appeal that income is to
teakenwat Rs.l0,0{)0/~ per month on the ground that
._h’e_V’i’s contractor, I am not inclined to accept the said
..’_4″x:ontention since no material of whatsoever nature was
produced by the claimant to establish that he.-‘-was
working as a contractor and he wasM’ea1*ningA.
Rs.l0,000/– per month, as contended. In
of this fact tribunal was justifiyeddld in
income of the claimant at Rs.3,0(»l40_/A
be just and reasonable. by
the doctor being at to of
income that the claimantdliasdd of the
disability in have to be
assessed and aged 55 years as
on the ‘of Sarala Verma’s case
[2009 multiplier would be
11 and ..considering” the same the compensation under
the h’ead5″losis.__of future income is being computed and
award ed» nu ntie-1*.
A o£r{sl.3ooo/- = 450 x 12 x 11m59,4oo/-.
2 ;”‘«’£:, Claimant was inpatient for about 12 days at
ll”-we___”‘tl\/lanipal Hospital, Bangalore and on account of the
‘_ “o:–:1¢l’r– is
advanced age Which is 55 years as on the date of
accident and also taking into consideration claimant
was already suffering from Nephrological .
Court is of the Considered View…..that _-C’o’tI”I1§ev;a’sati’on it”
under the following heads deseifi/’ec1’_’_’
marginally.
(i) Pain and suffering
(ii) Loss of du:.jing’*–treatment period:
3.000/+. eeee t ‘ l
[iii] loss.
1n”aii«._1§és..- _ ‘
Thus ‘ W be entitled to an
enh ancedi * Rs. 77 A00 / ~.
..In ofnvlthde ahove discussion the following
ll
‘~.(i} is allowed in part.
.. (ii)*= it An additional compensation of
l Rs.77,400/~ under the heads stated
herein above is awarded and same shall
carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of
(iv)
petition till date of payment or deposit
Whichever is earlier..
50% of the compensation awardediitéti-p:.j: -1-
this appeal with proportionate ._
shall be kept in a d’_depGs_it~:’ft§fd«.g_p”*7«’
Period of three Yefilk ini’£4?”:§~§.A.N”atio:1?§i1iaed ”
Bank of appei1a’n.t’s A”-rthoicét
appe]1ant/ claimant be denititniedyfito
draw peribdieal and A the
with
remaining e0n1pe’nsatirn)_’n”
propoiftionatei ‘Shall; paid to
_
The H HZW1. e’I1.t:’ sha’I_1″”ddep0sit the
said ” ‘ jurisdictional
tribunal withintivereetksidfrom the date of
receipt df eertifiedtcopy of this order.
‘ * -. N0_Qr.r,ier’as_ to costs.
it A _’f draw the award accordingly.
Sd/~«
JUDGE