High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Gangamma vs The Manager Transport Department on 2 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs The Manager Transport Department on 2 February, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
as THE may COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA§;C)}§i§§   .. _

Dated thisthe 2"day of February, wasp'  1"  °' 4

Bafore   

my HUMBLE MR JUSIIYCE Hzrgvxmwi  % 1?;-3:34'E}§}§f"--~ . %  j

Miscellaneous First    

Between:

Smt Gangaxmm, 3(}yrs

Wfo iate Ramanjaneya ._ » V

Rf; C;'o1\/Ilmiraju   V

€319irrIx.i:*appaI»a:v'0I!!«'««   ,    

Behind Amba Ma!iesh'§@*afi T¢iz1plé';_  _'   
Kanzakshipalya-,'B:tagiia:e--_V79     Appellant

(By Sri ca _Aé§. "
Indian Space Resgarch Orgatfiséttion
HAI,_§_&'Bangalore ' A

2   Smt"S vg;yaw;2aKm- hnappa

 _ ;;e~so,"1Tc'rogs,.V5*'*.1yta§:;, Kamakshipafya
"Bangg:on.» .559 9?;

V Oriémal  Co Ltd

TV By its Brangh Manager
~. _    1911, 1'**.1i1ocr, 3"' Cross
.. f ~  Garden, Shma.km' Mutt Compound
' --:B7arsg_a'iorc Raspondents

 V {   Iayakaxa Shetiy, CGC for R1;
' w. Slfiijfiaiilli Shiv'amaItda,¢Adv. for R3)

%./



This First Appeal is filed under 3173(1) 01' the Motor Act

praying to set aside file judgment and awaxti dated 29.5.2636."

471222003 by the MACT IV, Bangalore.

This First Appeal coming on for Ordcrfs  «:;gg;_ma aiggxga gs;-;1i%.}~'e@

the feiiowing:
JUDG;1£j£i'1¥T
Noiice to 2"" respondenfis  _V
Appeal is by the claimajfnf   compensation in

MVC 4712x2003. nae; :he:sQid me has awmied

compensaIi(}ri'bf-   claI3fia:2t' the injuries sustained in an

accident. Na:  __Béfore this Court.

_~   13'x*e1;:1;i_(i;35 am. when the claimant was traveiling in an

15emEiiig__}€o. KA 03 537 towards Mysore road, at that iime the

 tigfiifi respondent bearing No. CAZ 5541 in a negligent

V — “tad auto rickshaw in question. Due to the impact, claimant

‘ fei: down and stwtained injuries. Stating am she was Heated at

Nursing Home and sxflbrad fiacmre of the right clavicle, she filed

VT “a~ci;§ixn petition. Mam was mutated by the Insurance Campany. Based on

” Vflxe piaadings, “fxihamal having relevant issues, having held flzat me

9??

accident was due to the negligence on the part of the both vehicles in the ratio

of 25:75, awarded totai compensation of R.s.48,GG{}!-. Hence, this

Heard flue oounsei representing the parties.

So far as pain and sufieting is conccrged, Txihuxtai-..:};ag”‘a§vaa’de€i’4 ” ~

RS.I5,U0|3/-; Rs.5,00flf- towards loss of

medical expenses; Rs.3,{)00f- towards.»tiie,__t, cohvgyénce aa1’£lv’V”:V&:.:~:14I_VIfi:z}a:_§i3enVtA; ;

Rs.12,f)O(3x’- for loss of income during up and

Rs.20,{)0O!- towards disability. .%

The heané and suffering as also under
the medical zexpénsés, ~ «So far as income of the injured is

concerned,_;_1o is According to the claimant, even taking

.inco11¥4§; the wproprriatc muttiplier of 16, loss of

” fiiaébéfiity would come to Rs.39,720!-. Since already

Rs.2o;s1éae;;ssa{gva;dV¢3; the claimant couid be awarded another Rs.1o,72o:-

plus amotiieaf S, 0{)6i- under the head loss of ameiaitics and enjoyment.

-‘ the claimant would be entitled to anoflmr 15,720/’~ avar and

T what has been awarded, with 6% interest from the date of petition an

deposit. Irzsuner shall deposit the amount within three

ofthisonier.

Appeal is, accordingly, alloweii