High Court Karnataka High Court

Deekshita vs Alan Ignatius Lewis on 25 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Deekshita vs Alan Ignatius Lewis on 25 October, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RA'H*Ifm[,[SL"I1'  _

MFA.No.7799_Lg_OO7:¢ I    7}    I

BETWEEN:

DEEKSHITA  
D/O K GORI, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS-._ ' _
REP/BY HER NATURAL GuAROIAN,F--ATH--ER--~..CA

K GOPI, R,/O D NO.16?8/2,._3~*3D CROSS"  . 

VIDHYA NAGAR * 'I  \_  L   

MANOYA 571 401 '- _  I  '-.jj~..__.;..APPELLANT

(By SR1 NA--RI1«VG'Ow'OA';-.A__Dv..';
AND.E......_.

1 ;AI_A_N IGNATIUS LEWIS
WIS/O'r"«E i--EWI*S-. ..... 

I  AG-ED ABOUT 40 YEARS
 _ R,I.O-144;9;.4T" CROSS
 'I»1ANOvA 57;. 401

._ '.._,(OwNv_ER'OF' TVS MOPED BEARING NO
'  RA-3.1.1/3R;*x*617)

 2 T_HE;.BRANCH MANAGER

..  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., TD.,
I RORROSITE TO SILVER JUBILEE
* JPARK, M.C.ROAO
MANDYA 571 401  RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1 U ABDUL KHADER, ADV. FOR R2)

glib»

right foot, fracture of right tibia. She was hospitalised for

10 days and she was conservatively treated. Bones fwegre

united but there was a ma|~union. consequenttoV:su’ch”~V.

mal–union, she is visited with 25% physical

the right leg. Her guardian K.GopiMAllod’g-ed-4._clairn_”lseei<'i:ngH"'.

compensation holding the driver ofVthe_'TVS.:r_e,sponsi'ble..,l'

The claim was resisted. the
evidence lead by clairn'ant's_«"d'g'u'rad'ia"n~._AK.c5éopi' PW1,
M.P.Vishnu as PW2 and of
chargesheet motor vehicle

report Ex.Pé_ wa:s'i*a result of rash and

negligent di'i\1AiVn'g[of_gthe"TTtfS.__rider.

The' c,IVa.iman't…-"has suffered fracture of right

which""–after the treatment has resulted in

._'_piiy's'i'ca:l"v4,dis4a'b:i'lity. However, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs'.;i.:S,OO_f)/'eritdwards pain and suffering and Rs.2S,0O0/–

f'~..«._'gtowards"Epermanent physical disability and Rs.2,000/–

'ifto.wa'rjds loss of amenities, Rs.1,000/– each for conveyance,

attendant charges and towards extra food and

nourishment. The claimant is not satisfied.

(7C'L_Q–,./«

5. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my

attention to medical evidence lead by Dr.Panciarinath.-who

had not only treated the appellant but evalufiated’-hf”h.er~.,

physical disability. His evidence establishes’ M

disability of 25% on the right |owe’r””li’rnb: V

lost marriage prospects

disability. However, enhahcerirleint v..oppAos_ed~-Jby’ the
learned counsel forfithe yre’sp.o:i1dVe»n.t l\lo’.’2′-Iarrsurance
Company contending that.;the~,ph’ysicalf_a.d’isability will be

reduced since _.there-.i9 only’o.ne..f’ra’cture”:and the award is

reasonaibllelg “After theevidence on record, I am
satisfiedlarid. the Vaward~is’oriV..the lower side and needs re–

determination. ‘ _

of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain

landi’.__sofi’e’r_i_.n__gs:;'”needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/—.

V . Tow’a–rds*..l:2:76?d of the physical disability of the limb, the

.y.:Tdatd4naiiiHas awarded Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards

loss’ of amenities. Both these heads could be merged into

T ‘one and Rs.27,00G/- awarded is reasonable and it is

affirmed.

7. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/–

for conveyance and attendant charges which is orijthe

iower side and the same is enhanced to

Towards medicai expenses, the Tribunai_..ha”s’~v._Vate, it is
noticed that the victirn’is-a’*r_gftr!iv c’h:.i,’d..t’arnd though the
fracture bone is_iunitedi,’Wstiii:V;th_ere»–is Vm«a’1V’*”‘union of bone,
consequent,-“td is” nowrffxrisited permanent
disabiiity 3 Under the circumstances,

the marria~g4e-pvrdspéct..i’s”-cefrtainly affected. Hence, the

c|aim_§a”nter.is entitled to atieast a sum of Rs.25,000/~

towafrdsnffidginniniyshing prospects of marriage. In all, the

lc!.ai’m_an’t’ i@;,~ee,ntfi:tied as below:

” _xP’ain and sufferings Rs.30,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.27,000/=-

Medicai expenses Rs.2,000/–

Conveyance, attendant Rs.6,000/–
charges

i 51. /
OW

-5-

{Diminishing marriage Rs.25,000/–
prospects

TOTAL Rs.90,00Q. 7f -.

The rest of the award isv°iaVffi’rm_e’d. .;«

claimant is a minor, the enhanced anw__o£:nt is o’r;ciei’eci to be”

kept in the name of the minor::i”n a “for a
period of 5 years permitti’.n§’j”.t.h:eu:”guarciian’ draw
periodicai interest. The carry 60/0
interest. A V» V i it
Out of the iliribuvnal 25% to
be paid over to and other
charges. it i i A i it

itiippeai’ staiidvsi:di3ioo«sved of in terms of this order.

Sd/*3
Iudqé

‘ ‘ ”