High Court Karnataka High Court

Subhash C vs Kavitha Shankar on 28 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Subhash C vs Kavitha Shankar on 28 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE

mmn mm Tm 23m my or snprnnmmz, 2o1c:;j jT%

BEFORE

ma E-IC)R'I-JLE :.::ra..1us'rx<:.2   T   
mm. 110.2731 01:'  .;   %

 E

Subhaah. C.

3/0. Knitzrappa. C

Agnew years, ,  
Businessman,   _ 

New settled at D.No.721,

Che:-amtizmm,  ~ « %
Vanantha R3fld,§~'      

(By 315. man.  

% }  Wzo.% 8:-.i: fihanhar
" ._  ofBu.s
' 1_%.KA-{}i{AB~2347,
Ii'"z::.1=§£5,*i3ih}md Conaplmzg
. 433 ..C,.;su%t'
% Txahiparyam.

A .    

Bajaj Alliam Gwnral Inaurmwe Co. Ltd,
No.1C}5fAf 1371A, (3% Flam,

@--



2
136, Rmidemy Road,
Emit):-e -- 25. ...RESPOHDEH'1_'S

(By Sam H.R.I2m11m,Adv. for R2
Natioe to R1 E dfipmed with)

'Tm? 1&1! is filed under Section 173(1).,0f'MV--fAct,   
against the judgment and award;  214;'G?,.;520{)9_ 
in MW} H<:.183J32007 an  fi }_;¢ Qf"IT   f
Civil Judge (Sr. D11.) and III Additi9"na1':._Bo{0tof'~ACci;ig::ztt2._.  
Chm 'I'rih1.ma1,  "

petition for mmpamation and  bf

This appeal manna' V  RE P253131;     the
Court delivenad the £ulbw'izg_:;.     " -.

  ma  42* A-A=-tztéfor enhancement of
  

2.   ,  A' as acimittad and with the

  appearing for the parties,

 _  disposal.

._ '3,   §';;:f  d a, the pazfim are

  



4. 'I'ha'h;rieffa.cI3 afthe cam:

in Goa-  bus     V
AB-2347, the said bus toppled am. 

Villg. As a rwault, the  
Hame, he fikzad a   
Davana%, seeldfag  --.
'I791: Tribunal   of
Rs.1,34,2m/- §    Rg.1,35,m0/- with

iznterest      "

 "     ' oscnmn-xx

   ~ f       mbmy ofthe imumr of tha

 only point that az-Tamas fior my

V mmidmaflfifiv  the appeal h:

K V'  'whether the mmpcmaticon awarded
 titm Tribunal in just and reasonable at

V.    dam it call for  fi"

ac.»



4
6. Amer hearhg the learned coumel appearing

fiurtlaparfimandpmuaixgthejudfintazzdawaxwiof

thc Tribunal, I am of the vim that the campeknaVs3.ii§.§fi1..V

awarded. by the Tribune} *3 not just am    _

on the Iowa: sfie and heme    

 .

7. 11» czatmana has

a) Lefi cut injury

19) i3r%*1a11′,-m,%4%j,.,«jA<% wfih' bane puma'

B;:ti:1,the.V deacribad as gimu. in

auataixwd """ " and traatmxt taktm by the

front the wound certificate Ex.P–5,

% dgcharga c.G.Haspita1 Ex.P-6, dis<:1wu'g¢ card of
.' ' 'I-{capital Ex?-8, disability' ' cm-I1fica' te

% Ex1.P!-'i3:, X-my report and X-rays Exa.P'-57 & 58-60 and

' by om! evizimlace ofthe chimam and doctor,

E25:

when wem 1&3 as P’Wa-1 am 2 respectively. PW-2
Dr. Maheahwarappa, in % evidence has argued

claimant. cripples. He has aha opined that 3 K

and atvmfioxl is goosly rmtricted _
3% lag wamfizg. The fracture V’

porosis of ma tarsal hem: and
‘m disabifity of30%m uxaga nmgnm 3;’

Rs.2e,oo¢.>; mwm-as ‘pain and
gnaw * it ‘3 deserved to be

I§s.10,000]~ am! I award

9. ‘f’:Rs.30,000I- awarded by the Tribunal

i ‘ mmw’ is based on we madical bilh

by tho cla.11zaam:’ am theta: is no wope far

3%’

ID. The c:}n’m3ant wan tnmwd as V.

pew’ :1 uf +7 days in C. G. I*iosmta’ 1, Q

cmratiem of treamem, Ra.8,(X_)Ol-u *g§t*afdeci ..”.A.Aby”

Tribunal wwards ‘Food,
charm’ is an the 1owex*’: &i_:1<: be
mmnucaed by mum 1 award
ns.2o.ooo:~ unamzaa 44

be workim as a
Mamga and aarflm Rs.5,0QD[..

m'-fiat!" """ W E. In tlm absence, of proof af

__ has rightly' aa@sad hi income at

H Vv xm-nth. The nature at" sugmt

' have hem undn rest and t1~ea:&1t in? a

3 mantra and thamfare a sum. of 359,000!-

33'

7

Q awarded towards ‘loss of hummus during Iaidigp

pa-M as against x2…5,om;– awarded by the %

12. Caxmiduing the disab:i1ii§4::A’s;aa§:;ad’A

doctor am an amount of

ma c1a1znant’ has no Aime,
12a.10,om/- awarded of
is an mg m be
enhanced by % I award

13. about 26 ymrs at tha

of applicable to ht age

a mum: at Rs.3,000/- pm.

treated the chum has stated

% that or 30% to the limb. The asaabnity

I incaome’ works out to Rs.61,200I- (3000 x

fir’

101100 x 12 x17) and the same ‘ms awarded by

Tribunal.

14. mm, the claimant

fomawfig eompensation:– V 4′ _ V V _

a) Painand sumaw ‘

b) Medimq

:1) Loss

a) M. ‘fi «. R”s.2fi,D0Of-

~ Ra.51,2m1-

Cflflfiflfiflfifljflflflfi fifififl

_ ‘ , the appeal is aflowexi in part.
_ % fiudwt and award passed by tkm Tribunal in
‘ tn the axiaent stated main above. Th ::lmma11’ 1:

£3

9

is mmlsad for a total compematixm of Rs.1,70,2G0l-.-T– “aa

agaim: Rs.1,34,2oo;–, roundw it on’ 1:: %

awardnd by the Tribunal with mmt at 6’iI§V1;t .}1¥. { x

cfclaim petitian an the dam

15. ‘The to
with intweat dam af reefipt
afaoopy Of

37. . éf :1 wznpezzsatinn,

‘is ordained B: be irwaated in

Scheduled Bank/Phat Qfi’i::e for a

%;mm1%%¢r%%ej Rmimg mm: of 33.15.2001-
% § in ardamd ta be relamsed in favour of the

19

18. No ordm to mm’