IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALCWCE
DATED mxs THE mm DAY OF JUNE 20;(!.8. » : .
PRESENT:
THE H()N'BLE MRS.JUS'I'ECE :&%1AN;5:;,ILA cm§}VL:._u:§'
AND ..
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC1j§3 1<.N.i:£SaAvAi~:ARAY;A&;A'v,
M.F.A.NO. 143'?--.;]"'20O5V.£RJV)
BETWEEN: ' ' t
I-£.K.MAHADEVAPPA s/0 r§AR1¥,APPA_'AAv._ .
AGE 37 YEARS, * 1-
12/0 HEGGADHALI..V§LLAGE'ANi3~§4'€Z}ST, "
BEGUR HOBLI, Q23-ND.L!;PE'r'TALuK ' 'V
AND PREsEN1*LY'sA_RE4g;.1?"MAHAMVAMMA,
G}:~:JJAGA:~4'AHA:;;;,i v1LLAG'fi,_ =
POST M.ANDAKAH;ALL1 ' '
KASAE-.A HOB£;I, M'{SOR'E§.«_ . APPELLANT
(By szi:$ADM;A§:AB?iA-.§§E.:>1LAYA, ADV.)
AND; ' A 'V
1A-TfAs,LAM S/o }w-SSAIN, PENSION BLOCK
w , iaAssAmfowN, HASSAN
" ._AN'iT'HA Am". W/O LOKESH
A , ':,A;<_sI+:AIs_11Ai:)Evr NILAYA
BA-SAVESHWARANAGAR, BALLUPETE POST,
SAKLESHPURA POST, HASSAN DIS'I'RiC'I'.
% "THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.L'I'D.,
IDIVISIONAL 0FFiCE, S.V.NILAYA,
BJVI. ROAD, HASSAN,
BY ITS MANAGER. RESPONDENTS
(SRI.M.U.PO0NACHA, ADV. FOR R-3. NOTICE TO R’-1 AND
j R-213 DISPENSED wrm)
THIS MFA IS FILED U’/S 173(1) or MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AN!) AWARD r3A’rEn:5,12,2oo4 mssso
IN MVC No.225/2003 ON THE FILE or THE..’&EfiL)G§},
comm or SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. MACI’,~~Mf{S_GRE;
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM P1;Trr3os;A.jrtoi::.r
COMPENSATIGN AND SEEKENG ENHANCMENT4 ore
COMEPNSATION WITH AN 12-“/'<V:"P.'A§_';. '
Tms M.F.A. comma or: 3303-A'H:E:AR;'No}" ssjfrossj'
THE coum' THIS oar,' Mmqom CI{_ELL£?R,':.4
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWIN(}§
This appeal is awarct in MVC
No.225/ 2003 pertaiifirlg. occurred on
25.12003, the respondents
questioningi. on any grounds.
Hence,a:sare’V ‘fheverguments of the learned
counselsfor’ me élso perused the records.
25t6′;’2Q03, at about 9.45 p.m,, the appellant
alozzg were proceeding on motor cycle
39/C-3650. When they reached
‘VVMadraha1h…V’.VrIfilage, a lorry hearing Noam 13–A/9599
x V’ rash and negligent manner dashed against the
~ gip;jeItant’s vehicle, as a result of which the rider along
” pinion rider and the motor bike fell down sustaining
3
gievous ixljuxies to the rider and pillion rider of the motor
cycle. So tar as the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the lorry, the Tribunal has held that the aceident
was due to the negligence of the driver of the
same is not questioned by the respo:did.enii_1″~ _
Therefore, we are not making
said question,
3. Then coming to 2
according to the appe’11:e’i3I, of eoiinoensafion
awarded by the id’ éztmounting to
Rs. 1,418,046/~-V V'”ge’11eral and special damages, is
too low xéfheh the injuries suffered by the
, ” apyefidt and and sufiering undergone by him.
‘ ” of the evidence of P.W’.3~ the Doctor
evidence of P.W.—-1 appellant and the
medicaid’ Alreeords, we find that the appellant sustained
V’ “fi’a;(i’iZ1;tI’eH0f right femur, fracture of both bones of right leg,
‘ cut injury exposing the tendons of the right foot
12 cm x 8 cm with fracture of 2nd metatarcel of
4
right foot So far as right hand is concerned there was
deformity of right little finger and subsequently, the
fracture of little finger, 4th and 591 metacarpals were
disclosed. So far as femur and both bones of right
fractures were reduced by inserting screws _
skin graifing was done on the right foot.
were conservatively treated. He véss inpsfienton the-.,_firs.t.’
occasion fiom 26.6.2003 ts)’ r25.s.?29o3, “.
occasion from 17.9.2003 19.2063 fiaxid on thus’
occasion from 3.12.:2o_o3 §f.24;1.:f;.éco3, totally for a
pe1’iod:’c(if”1 ” in the hospital on all
the three occasior;s;.asv.si’ate§1 above, very often he came to
be adjnitredé to Vri_1e’*-._tS1osi)ita1 for pain of his fractures
the cofisecguence of skin grajting. According to
:,bo:tk1–.bcI1es are united but fracture of femur is
under process of union and ma} union of second
‘x__metaLarsa1Vis noticed. With this, there is stifiless in the
A “rand right leg is shortened by 2”. For walking, he has
.’ use clutches. According to the Doctor, with the best
possible treamzent, he would not be 100% normal person
and the appellant needs support to walk through out his
life. With all these, he ofiers disability of 60% to the right
leg [permanent disabiiity) and 40°/o to the total body’ So
far as right hand, no permanent disability of any
described.
5. The appellant was worl(i1__)g..a_s a ax it ”
monthly salary of Rs.3,080/– irxoltidirxgi
tax of 123.30/~ as on the date_v’of.aceirieV:ni;. _
at Ex.P.8 issued by ..SWemyVVf§Temp1e,
Kollegal Taluk shows Vlieiiiivas-. oiilesiteii 10 months and
10 days sleeve to his credit either earned.
ieave or’mediea1″1eaiie.Ti1iefJefore, he was on loss of pay.
The gresponxiexits ‘Have’ not challenged this certificate and
factflmtihat no appeal is flied, we need not
V’geV:Vm’1ineness of the contents of Ex. P.8 and R9.
we look at the quantum of compensation
it it J’und_er.difi”ere11t heads awarded by the Tribunal, we are of
Hie’ opi:t1ion there is no basis or any formula on which
-assessment was made. Though under general damages,
compensation is awarded towards injury, paiI1;'”–and
suffering, medical expenses are also included V.
awarding special damages of Rs.69,220/– as
There is no reasoning how the
came to be awarded for each
damages towards medical expenses of— swas ‘V
granted. Similarly, tiieflleatnegi’ ggggnper ¢f* mg MACT
ignored the permanent the appellant,
which affected’ ;I’herefore, some
amount ” towards permanent
life, future expenses
and nourishment The cost
of a;:d%¢:hei4 disability is also totally ignored
,.,.,by-itii1e:p_’1earnedAMember of the MACT. So far as loss of
“the leave period, the Tribunal ig;nored the
made by the appellant towards life
ixtsurantie, GPF etc. were to his benefits and even during
“period of his leave those amounts would have been
and deducted towards premium. The only
statutory deduction ought to have been towards
professiona} tax i.e., Rs.30/–. in the light of the above
Ieasoning, we are of the opinion the general
damages have to be assessed properly V’
awarding the following amounts:
General damages:
1. Towards pain + . S}.,()Uf)]~–
and sufiering – _ ”
2. permanent disability and – Rs. eees.2.§e,’ooo/~
loss of ameflities of Fife” ; ” ‘ ”
Special damages;
1. Medical ex;3en§ies,as ‘pei”_bi]1s V’ 69,220/-
2. Conveyance;-.n6’u31’ishment ‘
Other ixlcidental cliargés itici11dijI1g
3. Future_mediea1_ expenses . _’ Rs.
Loss~of’i1f1come.for ‘1,0ieo:1ths 10 days Rs.
at the rate of ‘Rs.’4 ,*Ei6?–j iper mongh
Rs. 15,000/–
10,000/~
48,225/–
R$.2.4_2′,445/~–
Iis’.’2,42,445/« is awarded as against
ff~.eéwarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
anieunt’car}ies interest at the rate of 8% per annum fiom
the debs 1′ of the petition till the date of deposit in View of
” ieermanent disability and ioss of amemfies through out
{he life of the appellant.
/
8
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with
costs, enhancixxg the compensation to Rs.2,42,445/~ as
against Rs.1,48,()46/– awarded by the ‘i’ribunal.;'”- The
insurer respondent shall deposit the said amouggi
with interest withm 8 weeks fmm the date of
copy of the order.
RS/”