£5}
-3 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 261'" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 H
BEFORE
THE }£ON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A.I§r % 55.: if _
Vipin Varghese S/0. K. M. Varghesc.'_
Aged about 25 years, "
R/at. No.38, 1633* C Main Road,
431 Block, Kozaxuaugala, _ "
Bangalerc-560 034. V __ ._ _ V --,_ , .. APPELLANT
{By M] s. Lawyer's Net, Advs, R.'-
AND:
1.
The Ekivisionsgi Ma3§1§:er;’*»’V”‘
The (“J:rie;:;tal I::e1zmz:tce«.%C”c>.. Ltd.
CBO 1iA,_’No,21,.M~;$sion.
New Subbaiah Cimicg _ ‘V
Banga1orcL-556C’) Q2′-?__’. ‘ 7
RV,”F¥avai13@th, …..
faih¢1*’a name not known,
‘ V.Nc;,54-[_5′,%?”*J? Grass, Lakshmi Road,
33&’183}’-739153 C”-‘5.l?’-T1311»
‘Shanthi
Bangaiomééfifl 027. .. RESPORBENFS
” ifi (B y»Miss T. Kmnar for
‘ S11. Sectharama Rao, Advs.)
firms Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
T against the judgment and award cit. 11.08.2005 $31
_ MVC 110.1743/2003 on the file of the {X Addl. Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Member, MACT~7, Mntxvpolilan Area, Bangulunz,
(SCCH. No.7), partly allnwirag the claim petition for compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
-2.
This Appeal coming on for admission this day. thcliourt
deiivemd W f°I*°Win8= . . II , .
This is cla1ma:n’ t’s appeal for enhancement of M ” ._
2. Claimant suifered grievous 32;;
that took place on 28.12.2002. IJ;;,vt_1}C saiizi ér:x:ide1V:3′.i:;. éufi’;§1.i?:dV .»
fiactum of shaft of fight femur. abiéaifin. on tVi:w3V_ of V
1611 thigh. hacmoperitone1Lti:i’~.g3cce33;(‘iai3?’j”blunt to the
abdomen and other injuries — treated in
St.lVfarth.a’s Hospi’:ta1′:..:iI}__itiaI1′;Ay, 11:16: was shifted to
Hasmat hos§pitaL’ frbm 29.12.2002 to 14.1.:2:003.
X-ray confirfiss’ figs v this regard. for interlocldng
11¢. on 30:11 ncccmbmr 2002 and
évéiovne on 1.1.2003 and thcxeaftcr he was
_ ‘ He stated that. he is working’ in Cofihe
caniéng – per annum. In support of his claim. he
ihc wound certificate, discharge summry, medical
fhas examined one Dr.B.K.Sud13akanth as Pw-2. The
A % v§§j2;:’§_d§)ctor has stated that. there is a disability of 36% to the
lower limb and 12% to the who}: body, based. on Which. the
S Tribunal wanted compensation of Rs.1,55,00G/~ with 6%
interest.
3% s<.'~.E_
3. Though the claimant produced consoiidated for
Rs.6.’2,200/–, the Tribunal calculated the same at
and granted Rs.50,0€){)/– tcrwanis medical
incidental charges. Apart finra the co;31pensati'<ifi .
towards pain and sufiering. Rs.IO.OO(V}._/« *::Gwe11t'ie.?»_»1oss 51* :é:a;ri3;ing
during 1aid~up period, Rs.65,O0O_iV~'t9wa1§is 'ioss *
Rs.5,000/ — towards loss of amenifies; ._u
4. Lean1ed__CounAse1, for submitted that,
the claimant iiebi «the Though
the disability 5; 12%, only 10% is taken
and the iiitcome when the (:la1maz1′ t was
earns)” g month.
Counsel appearing for the Insurance
that, the award is reasonable and
V pmpoffienazfie tithe injuries suffered by the ciaimant
A’ Insofar as injuries, hospitahza’ tion and medical
‘fl:mat1§nent are concerned, then: is no dispute. Admittedly, the
” has undergone two surgeries and has also mken
treatment thereafter. Though the bi1}:s are produced to the tune
of Rs.62..257l –. the Tribunal has szranted Rs.48».O00l — (iisbekvinsz
-4-
certain bills. The Tzibunak has obscured that, on a careful
scrutiny. the bills would workout to Rs.48.000/ -. If a mzfifigy is
made by the Tribunal ofali the bins and arrived at }’–“.._I
do not find there is any reason to disturb
However, incidental charge is VfiV:i{:.11
that the claimant has undexgong “on
sufficicnt time, it xequircs “bf V
which will not be in the fem; of 131115′ {am of the
apinion that the claimant i.s £:i«§§ii1’éd i§§.§{Vis’§;oeQ/– in addition to
Rs.50.C’00/-. is entitled
for Rs.30,000/__-..~ asj_;qss.. ‘0f~..i:t1€’:§:I’IV1′:=.-v”:”.'{VV11ri11g laid-up period,
when ‘ng that he was carnm” g
R35 1,000 – should have been taken
as income for ‘$7.’: f.-ezigigd A01′ Vfiiur months i.e.. he is entitled for
tawaxiiéfiass of income during laidazp period.
is taken. The claimant is entitled for
Rs.8.6i..4 GO/–A loss of future tartan” g as against
‘Rg.65,O4(x}€3/ towards loss of amenities, he is entitled for
V ‘i’?$;..15;GQO/;”as against Rs.5,000/ –.
_ \
Accordingly. the appeal is allowed. The claimant is ‘gntifled
for Rs.£2.12.400/- by way of compensation as
Rs.1,55,DOO/- awarded by the Tribunal with
annum from the date of pciition till ;>ay_n;¢1_1t.
KNMI –