High Court Karnataka High Court

Jeevan D’Souza vs Oswald Saldhana on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Jeevan D’Souza vs Oswald Saldhana on 30 November, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 01+' NOVEMBER,-2010
BEFORE  O' "

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIV?2:&SEiGOWll§A * 

Miscellaneous First Appeal,'Nb;"6'72l.1 elf 
BETWEEN A

Jeevan D'S0uza,

S/0. Baptist D'Souza,

Aged about 30 yearS,'~~..A_ _ _   _ 

R/at. Nidde Gokarna--Hpo.use,';--.'} '' '

Ku1ashekarP0st, '   1

Mangalore--57j5  ~  '
 O       Appellant

(By?   Tgfidv.)

1. C,s_vi/aid Sa1'dhanap,"" V.
S /0. _V Late ho.m'a.s5 Saldana,
 ~ Aged Major, '
'  , R/at.  Villa,
"Bej_ai«,.__Kapikad,

Unified India Insurance C0,, Ltd,
-- =Opp"." Popular Building,
" _K1.. S. Rao Rand.
Mangalore,
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
 Respondents

(By Sri. R. Rajagopalan, Adv. for R2.
R1 --~ Served)



This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and award dated 09.11.2005 passed in MVC
No.1608/2004or1 the file of ii Addl. Civil Judge [SR.DN.]
and Member, MACT-VI, Mangalore, partly allowing the
Claim Petition for Compensation and Seeking
enhancement of compensation. 1 

This appeal coming on for Orders, :_.the

Court, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the clairnantzfior of 0′

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Though the matter for with the

Consent “l;earii;ed ‘C.o’tinse’l”v appearing for the parties, it
is taken ‘up for.f’inal..disposa1.

3. F’o1′”~ the sal<e'~.of":.:'or1venience parties are referred to

are referred to in the claim petition before the

=

" lBrieefl:facts of the case are:

it .. That on 27-7-04, when the Claimant was

evtiravelling as a pillion rider in motor cycle bearing

registration No. KA»l9~R~6618 from Padavu High

55,

School side towards his residence via Nanthoor
junction, near Nanthoor circle, the rider of the motor
cycle lost control over the vehicle and caused the

accident. As a result, the claimant fell

sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a

before the MACT, Mangalore,.<s'eckipng'_:' ;

Rs.5,00,000/–. The Tribunal".b}}'.A_'_inapugne*dV

and award has awarded coinpensationplof

with interest at 6% ..p.a. ,Aggr_i'evle'ei._ by the quantum of
compensation awardledllbjfftlhe the claimant is

in appeal seeikiiag e:nha3j.cement-ofcfompensation.

5. t’r1ere:”isl =no*-.._dis__pute regarding occurrence of
accident’;.Vnegligence*and liability of the insurer of the

V€lliCl’3~,–~«’th€ only point that remains for my

V in the appeal is:

lp’;Whether the quantum of

_ ‘.c~o_rn=pensation awarded by the Tribunal is

.. just and proper or does it call for
‘enhancement?

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties

and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the

view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore
it is deserved to be enhanced.

7. The claimant has sustained the following

i) Multiple small abrasions over H
ii] Abrasion over right”sthoulde:r.”’_I’4 . t
iii] Abrasion over left 1

iv) Lacerated over “rrrid_d1e”.ot; collar
bone. . l a
v] Laceratecl aspect of right

clavicle at middle 1/3%” .

lower end of right radius with
radio”‘u’lr1ar dislocation.

sustained by him are evident from the

Awounvd.’:lcertificate — Ex.P.5. discharge summary —

AA disability certificate — Ex.P.11, x~rays — Exs.

and 15, case sheet — Ex.P.13, scanning report —

EXP. 14 and supported by oral evidence of the claimant

and doctor examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.

435%

P.W.2 — Dr. Edward Nazarath, an Orthopaedic Surgeon
has stated in his evidence that the claimant has
sustained injuries indicated in the wound certificate.

He has treated the claimant for the injuries…a1id_.io~1ir:d,

claimant complains of difficulty in

limb and there is limitation of at ‘4

shoulder and right wrist: joint;”‘._l*le :..s:tate’é;l dltlialto

claimant is having disability .’2_5%Vato npper limb
and 15% to Whole A

8. Considering th.e…:nat1ire:_o’t”iinj:ij:vries, Rs.23.500/-

awarded-byll’the_::’Tribnr1al -towards pain and suffering is
on the “lower deserved to be enhanced by

apniother Rs.V'(3r~,..i_”)V:C)VO/ and I award Rs.30,000/– under this

a “bleach _
‘V 9; .1–:9,000/– awarded by the Tribunal towards

rriedioai expenses is as per medical bills produced by

.. the elaimant for Rs.l7,097.22 ps., the same is just and

proper and there is no scope for enhancement under

“this head.

10. Claimant was treated as inpatient from 27-7-04 to
01~«08~0éi for a period of 5 days in A.J. Hospital,
Mangalore. Considering the same, a sum of Rs.£..3,000/–
is awarded towards incidental €Xp€I1S€S_¢”~3″sjl;illt§l’}_vV as

conveyance, nourishment and attendant c1′:arge’sLj A

11. Claimant claims to have.–bee–n a_i’Sa1.es ‘ ;

Executive in Airtel Mobile

Rs.3,500/– per month arid”‘~Rs.1.,”500,’.:lj’permfhonth ash

allowance and he hasV_supp’o1’te’dllti1e same”by’ examining
his employer as ‘salary certificate

at Ex.P.1Q; gfibufifaai the allowance of

Rs.:1″:,A5O0/~.VV ‘ has rightiy considered his
incomeiati month and considering the

period vof.l’r’es,t______and treatment as six months, has

‘ ;V’awar.ded_’«.Rs.._21,OOO/ — towards loss of income during

‘Kla’id up’v-period and there is no scope for enhancement

under «this head.

Considering nature of injuries, disability stated by

the doctor and Certain amount of discomfort and

unhappiness which the has to undergo in his future

life, Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss
of amenities is on the lower side and it is deservedpto be
enhanced by another Rs.5,000/– and

15,000/– under this head.

13. Claimant is aged about 4’i\i’fu1.tiplier if

applicable to his age g’_r0«s.,ip vbthe’

claimant is assessed at e’ month. The
doctor has assessevdftlepdVi.se§.b:i.lit3r.V,%£QSGAJ to right upper
limb and 150/’gto stated by
the doctor caused to the
whole future loss of income
worlis “(Rs.3,500/- X 6/100 X 12 X
1’7} and R

;’_A-TI:’hus the””ciaimant is entitled for the following

c_ompensat.i_o’n:

V1) ” ‘Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/–

*–:2.) ” ” Medical expenses Rs. 19,000 /M

” Incidental expenses Rs. 3,000/~–

4) Towards loss of income

during laid up period Rs. 21,000/-

5) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/M

6) Future loss of income Rs. 42,840/–

Total Rs.},30,840/—

15. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitlediéfor

a total compensation of Rs.l,30,840/

Rs.73,500/~« awarded by the Tribunal” i;_ntereVst”–Vatlf’.

6% pa. on the enhancedcompens_ationl.’ovfAR.s.=57;34O/7

from the date of clairn-v:petitior1- ptill ‘date of
realisation, excludingAinterest{forV”the delayed period of
835 days in filing the

16. The 3l1’1’s.tii”anee to deposit the

enhandced alnoimt with interest within
two of receipt of a copy of this

judgment’ exclixdiengllinterest for the delayed period of

., _ A in filinugthe appeal.

.l.7.* the enhanced compensation 75% with

p-ropofiionate interest is ordered to be invested in FD.

pp in arty: nationalized or scheduled Bank in the name of

l claimant for a period of 9 years renewable once in

–three years with a right of option to withdraw interest

periodically, and the remaining amount with

proportionate interest is ordered to be released in his

favour.

No order as to costs.

mgn*