1
IN T HE I"{IG]E"I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMEEREO
PRESENT " '"'
THE HONBLE MR. JUST_ICE__ N. 1<.';"mé~fIf1TI;"5: Q u
AND: 4. _ V
THEHONELEEHLJuSHcEH£ufimmm®NA}"-
1MJ?AJNO£M)Of2OO5[NQfl-f X
BETWEEN A ' V'
B 3 NAGARAJU -- V ,
S/O.J'ANARDHAI\%
AGED ABOUT 3vS"Y.E}é~.-RS I ,
R/ATNO. I 82/3.,'--RM3/"V11 ST ' «GB
.BAN'GALORiE--9:?f--. '
_ _ _- ...APPELLANT
(By SMT _ BHUS 1«1_A1x:j1j ATQJEMA-R. ADV.)
AND
1. OR'IENT'A1JNSURANCE COMPANY LTD
.. gig
A REGIONAL OFFICE N044/45
' --» ._u3:O«sHO"FE_1NO COMPLEX
RES*IDENCY}~ROAE)
O "--.TBANG7fALORE-25,
EY.:TsMA_NAOER
N RENOARAJU
= 4_ s/ONATARAJ UDYAR
'No.1/58, NORTH. STREET
" CHINTHARAPATTI. POST
THURAIYUR TO, TRICHY DIST.
F0
T/-\M.II,,NADU
3. D M RUMAR
S/O..M'ANC.i~i'E GOWDA
NO.33_. 6"' CROSS
MICO LAYOUT.
WEST OF CEORD ROAD
BANGALORE
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COLTD "
4"" PLOOR, TOWER 'BLOCK '
UNITY BUILDING, }.C.ROAD._
BANGALORE, BY ITS MANAGER"
' = . ,_ RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. : 1<.N. SRINIVASA, ADI/. EOR'R'I _ __
R2 TO R4 — NOTICE DISPENSEDV wI.'TI~{ V./O. DATED 10.12.2010)
THIS MFA IS,1:§CF3'ELED"1J/S. 173(_ DA OF ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND.V'Aw.AR'D;jj–..D'AtIf'ED':v«17;S;II4 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2398/Q,1._,,V ON%'*TP:EV_PILE'wO'I«* 'FI<{]_3_ Ix}ADD'L. JUDGE. MEMBER,
MACT–fi, COURT OE i'sIvI.ALL.,,'CAUSES, BANGALORE, SCCH No.7,
PARTLY, : ALLOW'I.NG..,"~.TPI.E' ' CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION' AND"–~…__"s«I=:EI<.ING ENHANCEMENT OP
COMPENSATION. ' ' "
.. QTIIIIS APPEALOOMINO ON POR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
N J} “DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
, _ V _,
.7 ‘_.””%4Aci_i11I{t’:.’_
2V.’ ThIS appeal by the Claimant arises Out Of the
judgment and award dated 17.08.2004
in MVC NO239 /2001 On the file Of the IX
/X,»
3
Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accidents Claims
Trib1,1nai~7._ Court of Small Causes. Bangalore
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for »
Tribunal by its impugned judgmentand uh’
a compensation of ?6,37,800/W witlriiriterest’
annum from the date of» petition” till _r0eali’:sa’tio1’i as” 0
against the Claim for?SV,50,000:/pf.o’n_aCeoun.t injuries
sustained in the road claimant felt
necessary to, ground that
lower side and seeks
for enh ane”eni5e_nt.’0 1:: J’ _l’».
3. Tiafilbrief _fa.ets.of~ the case are:
appellantplaims that he was aged about 32
0′-_’years,=._”werl{ing as supervisor at M/s.Divyashri
En£ei–pris.sés Valid drawing salary of ?3,600/W pm. He
was hale and healthy prior to the accident. When
thus stood, that on 27.05.2001 at about
i§0.30p.m., when the appellant was driving a motor car
I;/’
f »»–**”‘J[)HJW
4
bearing legistration No. M 7126 from Channapatna.
‘1’ a.].1.1k towards Bangalore. near Dasappanadoddi Grama,
on Bangalore Mysore road. a lorry bearing regivstratiopn
No.TN-45~X–14I5 came in high speed f1’Q’£l1
direction in rash and negligen.t~~naanner Venrli»angerineg it
human life and dashed against p
which, the appellant sustain:e’dV_p1nju’rie_s’ fi{acmi~e of
dislocation of right hip”, fracit’ur.e:’-of”-fight ltaltisgl fracture
of right mallulus, right ibpra¢m a1i paralysis of
right upper taken to Subash
Hhduhderwent treatment as
inpatient ‘for 12 days and underwent
surgeries and implalntslwere inserted. On the advice of
the lddc’torA.he hasmtaken follow up treatment and bed
1 of six months. The doctor has assessed
fulnctionallrdisability at 100% in respect of right upper
ilirnb, 450/o to the right lower limb and 65% to the whole
l It is the case of the appellant that he has spent
/42»
5
considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing
food and attendant charges and medical expenses;_l:”««.il_l’~V._
4}. On account of the injuries sustainedjin thine”: ”
traffic accident, the appellant was”‘c’onstrai_ned:. file
claim petition under Section l6(E§7oi”‘
the Tribunal seeking compleiitsatiori—.for of it
38,50,000/– against, the ‘”‘l’ribunal
after assessing the oral evidence and
other relevant ‘inat’eria._l a;’v’ai1abl:el–on,_hthel file allowed the
claim petltion”‘_,.in””– parltjv’e..aw.arC1ing compensation of
36,37,800./’~ heads with interest at 6%
from the date oflclairn”pte_itition till the date of realisation.
Notloeing Vsatisfied____w£th the quantum of compensation
Tribunal, the appellant has presented
th.el’instan–t’appeal seeking enhancement so far it relates
to coiavlejyance, nourishing food and attendant charges,
“1oss’of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness.
r ..»…»fia»-“‘*”‘””””””””¢:’
6
5. We have heard the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel
appearing for the first respondent M Insurance Conipany
for considerable length of time.
6. After hearing the learned.’lfjioltinlseia
parties and on critical evaluation V’ of .r_r_1ate:riaIis_l”e.
available on record ‘lll§.1ClgII16I1lL
and award passed by emerges is that
the Tribur1a14’=.}3uas reasonable
cornperisa§t1.oh4’_’ injury pain and
sufferings,’ medical expenses,
income during treatment
pevribdi_§”25,0f)0*/aytowards future medical expenses and
towards loss of future income and
i1ite’i’fererie’e is uncalled for.
7:’. However, the Tribunal has erred in not
awarding reasonable compensation towards
if “conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges,
égw
/
7
loss of amenities. disconafortis and unhappiness. _ The
un.d_isputed facts of the case are the occL1rre11ce.Lof._ltihe
accident and resultant injuries sustained
appellant in the road traffic acci.den_t.A 2 in
dispute that. the appellant has
a period of 12 days in the h0Scl}pl5’ital and__ tl1ere_atter”‘l”1e:has
taken further treatment landdibed rest
for a period of six assessed the
disability as has to forego
happinessilanid’ his life. He cannot
discharge” wlasllperforming prior to the
accidelnt.VVll T it fit to award ?l0,000/–
towards co”nVleya1″1ce’,- nourishing food and attendant
‘ .l”‘ch’é1;’:s§eEs’ra,s’l’ against%E§,OOO / — and ?40,000/– towards loss
A’-~of«.iarr1e.ri’itiesjf-discomforts and unhappiness as against
320,000/’—tuawarded by the Tribunal.
at l En the light of the facts said above. the instant
filed by the appellant is allowed in “part. The
“‘wéy*
{
8
judgment and award dated 17.08.2004 passed in__MVC
No,2398/2001 on the file of the IX Addit.iona3″‘tl:u_d’g¢.
Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.-ff, *
Small Causes, Bangalore SCCH~= «is ‘Al
awarding a sum of ?6,59,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal. “,[“he”enhancedcolnltfensation
comes to ?22,o0o/– mth mtereet 6%”p’.’a.””trom the
date of petition 1:111 the
The Company is
directed to de–oosxivt0theéjielrtthzazleedgcompensation together
with interest,’ of three weeks from the
date of receipt, of eo;A3y”.Tthe judgment.
_Venhar1ee..d.’compensation of ?22,000/e with
released in favour of appellant
idmrnediatellyecion depositing the same by the first
respondent — Insurance Company.
r Office to draw the awrd, accordingly.
9
Sri K.N.Srinivasa, learned Counsel is permitted’.’tQ
file Vakalath for first respondent within four Wee~k§{ ”
today.
” fa.