N THE I-HGH cwm or KARNATAKA. ~ V
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY or-' JUNE. A ' % L
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE ms. JUSTICE , A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE _;<.si§KEsHAvANAaAYA&4A
MISC. FiRST
BETWEEN _
ARUN NNFARNM if; E .
Si0.DiWAKAR
AGED N057, I CRO'SS~ _
v:vE'K;¢a§;:xsDAw.GA,§2-,
JAIBHARATH NOW AT wows.
GROUN_0FLOG3?.
3 EAPPERS
BANAS¥§fADl ROAD. BLORE--33 APPELLANT
. (By Se':-:.;. s nJAVA_I,_I_H& SR1. LAXMINARAYANA)
'Ia ' SAT_Hl$H§'S!O.K.MADHAVA RAG
' SACHIN
4' CASHEW FACTORY
KULSHEKAR, MANC-}A§..ORE
E 5 : 'THE MA:~M£ER
-MISORIENTAL INSURANCE C0.LTD..
LEO SHOPPING GEEK.
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS.
BLORE-25 RESPONOENTS
A (W Sri : M SOWRIRAJU FOR R2)
'mas MFA is FILED ws 173(1) or w ACT AsA:.s~¢s3*.Té£E. "
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 21.1.2603 PASSED -.
NO. 161098 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. JUDGE',-..ME_MBER, ' ~
MACT-7, coum' OF sum. muses. ..BANGALOR"£:g_"PARTl.Y k
A1.LOWiNG THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
SEEIQNG ENHANCEMENT OF _ .
This Misc. firs: appea! com[ing_Von
KESHAVANARAYANA J, defivered t.~»g:saowing:_
U°G¥EEI=.
The claimant in M.V.(f§.i\éI£DA.1"6.1£§§»V;V,¢f tbs an of the IX
Addl. Judge and 4.§we;nbes§' Small Causes.
Bangalore. with the quantum
of
2. meta . Vfiaécégimgsu filed ctaim pew' 'on in the Court
for persona: mum smaimd by him
id um occurred on 3.12.1997. According to the
éaaittiagi iaiked a Maruti car from HERTZ Company on
A % . 3.12.9? m._'§o'$v$ Goa. Mangalore and back ea Banmiom and wise
firoéeeding on NH 47 at about 2.30 pm. on 3.12.97 near
M§n§<en"Town a passenger bus came fawn opposite' direacfim and
mains! his car. as a result of this he sustained muitipie
% injuries on his head and came: parts. immediately be was shifted to
%/,
a private hospial in Bafltai and ihereafwr to Unity 3-batik
at Marmicre in an ambulance where he was in-musgiti
7.12.97
so 9.12.97 and than he was mm to Banga!a{e.4V.Ev”fiéght..i§’v
Ir-k>sn1m-h%pim|- where he mm mm ‘ x V
him he sustained mumpae trauma of rlg_»¥1z’:…&%§*¢a’i*2:£_.: %paa:e;.s%%%a;us%{%’
screws were implmted to reduce.fi’:e__fraact£n”.¢{” .
was again admsued to me hospiml y9a: 1999 i§r égaays for
remove: of the impiants; n§M has spent
Rs.91,47?1- inwards medical’ at Rs.amo:- far
the air ticket. ca :§:<s p_as:s Compensatksn of
"
3. %ed by me tmuramce
– __:fi.f£_er ma; «ezzmmed Member at me wanna: awarded
Rs.1,%,006l- under vati-nus heads. Being
d:ssaasaod* said award. me mmw has mm»: this
V. _» V , The two main grounds mew by the Imyned counsei fer
V’ appellant during fimts ware um he mated aaarnbew of
“4”‘V.§$Tflmmlfmmamrmdmw mmme medical
axpendimreandatsonoawardtaasbmmadefotfuturelcwof
earning. In addition to this. ieamed counsel ”
amount of compensation awarded under other —
it is atso his contention that the Tribunf§to£igi~:?£_ to havo_”&y.faVrdxed
Rs.91.477l- towards medical expenses.
5. In this appeal, rwpondont’
heard the learned counsels ‘
6. The court below hag compensation
under different V. t
(a) sniury 9ain.éfié”S4’§§tin§ 0 Rs. 45,000-
(b) Medina! _ _ 0 0 66,000!-
(0) convefifanoe, food ‘am 4.000;.
(0) Lo:§gs’of.oatnirioAA<xiuting.treot:nent 20.0001.
t (0). of mwicai expensw 25,000!-
Rs.1 .60,000!—
us-unn-uunu—–um:——u
..t.hisVv’it is noficod that the Count betow has awarded some
towards future medical expenses. However, there is no
Vt aword for loss of future earning. Now the quesfion is as to
A V ” ‘whether the claimant is entifled for enhancement.
?. As noticed alrmdy. file Court below has
Rs.45,000i~» towards injury. pain and suffering. We _a.!.’;e_J” V.
considered view that having regard to me M
sustained by the claimant viz. fracture ofithe’ right esiboalvu slaving ”
regard to me avocafion of the claimant in; anteunt
awarded under the head injury. pain isiuat “proper
and there is no scope for enhancetnent; . -. _
8. The Coutt below towards
medical expenses; “««T..8lccoreling counsel, file total
amount R-5.91.477/.. However, the vial
Judge ace; verifying’ aie.e:aire.. bills produced. has noticed’
that adxiarscevv receiptslihaiée been included twice and those
Erefceipts ‘afe«tal_c_en into considerafion in the consolidated
bill,” “LJnde__r’c__i_rcumstances. the learned Judge has calculated
ll.ll’m.l ‘rnedicalisexpensw paid by the claimant at Rs.65.671i-
V -V and has Rs.66.000I-. We do not find any error committed
H K coal: below in this regard. Hence. it does not call for any
‘intetfefenoe by nus Court.
9. The Court miow has awarded a sum of Rs.4.000.!-
towards conveyance charges. it is the case of the claimant that he
came by air to Bangalore from Ma-ngalore for further irwhnerrt end
he has incurred an expense of Rs.5,925f- towards air.
However, the Court below has awarded only Rs.4,Gf.§b}é’ .
ground that this amount oovereci mree iioirets. FY3515? K ”
have been accompanied by an afiendarit. it is
proper to award the entire expeneee by
ticket. Therefore. we are inciinedVui’io:_'”ewardV”ReiS;fiOOI;’:§iowerds
conveyance expenses as .
10. The Coin’: oeme’onasL’o:awai;oeeii’a of Rs.20.000!-
towards Vloe”s”‘of.ue%irnin:Q According to the income
tax returns,’ tire claimant for the financial year
1997-98 the financiai year 1998-99 his
, Re.6’$§’.iG0{¢_,___The accident has occurred on 3.12.97. it
tiji-e,’VAbi:sievA.Vii2e’Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the
olairnent and awarded Rs.20,000I– for loss of income
V V’ . Having regard to me nature of injuries sustained.
treatment and the surgery he has undergone, it is just and
grant ioss of income during laid up period for six monfiis
ei:Rs.5.m/- p.m. Therefore. total loss of earning during five iaid
ex
up period works out to Rs.3i3,0mI- as against Rs.20,000l– awarded’
by the Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sumr.eas.2s.oc¢:. govmsogs d ”
loss of amenities and future media! exlpeneese ;’; T’?re_’evIdenu:’d off
the doctor indicates that the claim:rr;’t’~r;as ouffered~’d1e%
extent of 25% of the whole body. toiheivevidence on
record the claimant is a vehicies and
takes the tourists insuch yehéofeo tourist places.
Having regard on account of me
accident. ‘dfi?e’dfee.!.:’€?§e under’ A head loss of amenrae:s’ ‘
at Rs.25.oo0;. semi lower side. We are of are
considered are under this head should
– be to
k ‘ro2.ir~ea§v§ng regard to the fact that me claimant was in-patient’
and as he has also undergone a second
removal of imphms during this period. he must have
‘ expenditure for conveyanw. attendant charges, nourishing
V. em. However, the Court below has not awarded any amount
dd this hm. We are inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,000l-
under Eris had.
13. As noticed eartier. according to the learned
Court below has net awarded any amount K
expenditure for M replacement of he _
to the evidence of the doctor the mtient ‘V
repiacement but it is not the of
ciaimant is required to W5 *5*3’fl°£ fifid 3″?
ground ta grant sepafaté’ fat are
mphcemmnoffigmiégbiowébi-m}.::::: .
14. of earning has not
been by the ciaitmnt
himseif mat on woount of disabiiity
insurred by ism; of income during the subsequent
. _yaar.-;.’ the income tax reams that he
me mam. Under these circumsiancfi,
We. ta-award cos-r:%afion anw the head
M V L’ ééfning.
1%[%%e;csora:ng;y, the appeai ‘m exam in par: with com
..__”V”.”eaVléancing the compemam to m.1,97,9eae. as agasmt
k’ ” .r=as.1,se,eeez~ awarded by the Tribumi. The 2*’ madam being
theinsuraroffiueofimding isdir%”todeposit!.?ue
compensation amount together with intetest at 6% _
petrtton” tofl1edateofdeposIt’ wieninesghtweeks. ”
Other directions of the Tribunaf a rg c<§;1r":.:'imo§d…' :" ¥