High Court Karnataka High Court

A Raja Hegde vs M G Hussain on 10 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
A Raja Hegde vs M G Hussain on 10 July, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN 'EH11; HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA A1' 5ANGA1&e§§1{jg:«'  ; ;: j 'V   _

DATED THIS THE 10*" DAY or ;u:.,y 206:;  % [IQ  =
BEFORE; A A    1' 

THEHONZBLE MRJUb'TICE;§'_._V}£LfDl§Lv~J§giZ.I§1E'_?§   1
MISCELLANEOUSFIRST4PPEflL.;Q§_Q;y?/26$  

Between:

A. Raja Hegde, . _ -.

Aged about 55 years},  1', 

SEO A.C. Duggappa.HE;gde;::fi-:  'V ,

BK. Compound, MeIi:ig3..1§ai'égan;,A"'~.,.. -- '
Ma.ngal0rew575~OjO2.   ,.  é  Appellant.

(By Sn' 1. "'I.fti21éra:s.2a.ti1aPt3oj_.fii'3"", Adv.)
I %%s&iii&fiéann7§°

V Aged  45 years,

_ Sf<5"Hamad,'v{3hokkabettu,
' Surathkai; Mangalore.

*" S#h6anu,
"  about 35 years,
5;:/0 Koragappa,

%% "  Kallugundi, Renjilady village,

Puitur Taiuim



3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bridge Road, Baimata Road,
Mangalore,

Reptd. 13y its Branch Manager.    

(By Sri Y'.P. Venkaiapathi, Adv.R3)    a.   

This Miseeiianeouéi  "Appeal is-fiieii under Sec.173(3) of
the Motor Vehicles AVf'§$.'¢,"V1V'}83,'.'v the  and award
dated 5.3.2005  nz[a%naMVC"n1s;o;499/2000 an the fiie of the
Principal Civil Judge (Sr.D11..)'ené'~ «1_\&'gCT~IV', Mangalore, etc.

 Appeal coming on for Admission

 {he ('1(i';a:*t't'm_l_ivet'ed the following:

JUDGMENII'

    in MVC No.499f2000 eased 11.2005 on the

 t iiediffi1e Pfincipal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Mangalore, has

VT  appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the

u,,, A .  " Tfibunal is inadequate and seeking its enhanceqnetrt. "

%.

'ax
-\z_ 
av;



2. There is no dispute as to the 0GCu!T€§i1é'é 't)i"£1;é«.;ac(:ic3£ffii--iiV3  "  

question and the Iiability of the third tr'espc:;dent-§§z.sug%an¢et'  V

company to pay the compensation amoufitt.  »

3. Learned Counsel tbr   §§¢§::;§'*emuend that
having regard to the nat;;fe__ot'    claimant

on account   1 Tribunai was not
justified in Wang tmuy}; '§§R$L.15,oooz. towards pain and
slttferingt  tltat the Tribunal has not granted
  medical find incidental expenses,

loss"  treatment period and compensation for

 méiiicaiv-..':exp§§1ses. It is fizrther contendeti that the Tribunal

 Atcthave . awarded reasonable amount towards loss of

"V  az11¢z;iij_eS; 

u   Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the

Atfiirnpugted jsdgmerzt and award.

4

5. aw; in his evidence has stated that he has spe11t…()’l’§’_&.*Vrl:

Rs.40,000:’~ towards his treatment. He has produced ll H

certificates in support ofthe said claim. It isihisv ease:

has paid a sum of Rs.4,OO{)1′- towards >pr_of’eseieg1elte”his V’ V’

Doctor. He underwent surgery for his fiedi:1¥*e»in the

The l)octor”was been
claimant was treated as an inpatient 113.12. 1999

and he underslkent fieeiuee in the right humerus. The
Tribtmal has avéazfgledv “elfi_”..’eRls.2l,I50f– towards medical
e4xpenses.V.» li1ile£i”t0_§_V_n§*?Jd a sum of R.s.4,000!– towards

pfeijessienal by the claimant to the Doctor. It is also

¢vide:§w,i:§az’t1l¢; has only awarded a sum of Rs.l5,(}{}0/–

V7._ tewaVrds palris Having regard to the injury sustain’ ed

‘file I am ofthe View that the Tribunal ouglt to have

etleast a sum 0fRs.25,OO0f- towards pain and suffering.

. – Alliellffflbunai has only awarded Rs.6,,900f- towards less of income

treetmeni 11:11″ 69 days. Having regard to the evidence on

SHWTO.

Fz;xticuIat*s

Towards pain and suffering . , »R3.30,0i)0;:GG”

N.)

Towards Medical and i11cidenta.l_Vé§;pcns€§mf ‘

LR

Towards loss of income

Towards ioss of fiiture–earnmg c3,–_

— A_ ‘T Rs. 5,000.00

Rs.12,960.00

Towards less of atnenities ‘ T ” 2 Rs.10.,0O0.00

Towards fi1tt1rcAmcdica1.e:’spc:nse.;; L Rs.10,000.00

–30’\t.ru-&’h

Tawards (;{¥1′}V§}y3IiC€l Rs. 5,060.00
expenses H ._ _ _ _ ._ .

1 A Rs.5?,960.00

The a:;;¢;n::&;$~fi:;;;x¢ed?_o:°fto £2;g;:60,gé00/~.

7. InVV’the’1’ss1V1!t-, foliowmg:

V. ., A is £V1Ili:si7észiVci in part. The ciaimantfappellant is
‘ftar::$§’éé:1A1.rr’i434″g:%:’v1_{,s.6O,OOOf~ towards compensatien in addition
‘ ” to awarded by the Tribunal. The said amount

carry vifierest at 6% per atmum fiom the date of the claim
ihe date at’ deposit. The respondent-insurance company
H to deposit the aforesaid sum within a period of eight

‘ A” %eeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. The Tribunal

is directed to release the said a1noun’_t_…in__ 12-:1\é’_oi1i””

appellantlclaimant. No costs.

BMW972009 A’