".BRNGA£QREylO """ '"
- 1 H
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNRTAKR AT BRNGALGRE
DATED THIS THE 29"1nAY ow JULY 2oQ8 V_
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K L MANjUxA?g._ "
END 1
yua HON'BLE MRs.Jus::cE a v'Naségaifimég"*
MFA N0.35éféb04{M?1 :"'
BETWEEN
R AnINARAYANA*NA:K,"x=
RG33 ABOUT 32 YmaRs}
No.352/2;*§"VMAIN "
MANJUNfl?HANA§AR
'"réi;séiKaQfi"éHAw, ADV.,)
'"»i'§. R RAJENSRA, MAJQR
A's/0 RAMALINGAPPA
UJJANEPURA, PAPER TOWN
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMGQA DISTRICT
ouc-
A?PELLRNT
_ 2 I
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPRNY LIMITED
SHRNKRRRNRRAXANEIBUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BRNGALQRE~l
REP BY ITS REGIONAL MRNAGER
(BY SR1 Y 9 VENKATA?RTHZ, ADv., ye: §42;I
R--l -- NOTICE GISPENSED wiry} ' ' "-- *
... RE$§0N§E$?éffF
THIS MFR 13 ETaaa,u/s i?3a1) Q§_fi;v.AdT'
AGAINST THE EUDGMERT ANL,AwAR5'DATEQL21;B;23o3
PASSED IN MVC NO.37i6f200@ SN THE.FI§E'QF THE
VII ABDITIONAL JUSGE e; EEQBER, MAC?:3,*c0uRT
0? SMALL CAUSES, BRN€ALGRE_{SCflfigNG.3), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE cLAIM'PE?i§:QN'r¢R"CoM9ENsaTI0N
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT_QE CQMPENSAEION.
TH:3_"AP?E§LI=¢0$iNG ON FORT ORDERS THIS
§AY, NAGARaTHgAI.J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
I"*.gWu D G M E N 3
I.'"ThIsI:é§peai is filed by the claimant
'Ibeifi§.I§Q@{ieved by the judgment and award
A'fp§fiéed by MACT, Bangalore, in MVC No.3?l5/2880
'IfuII'dated 21.8.2803. /i9L4r
2. The relevant facts of th¢*,caSe' 3xe_'a
that the claimantt whdt waS;t,Qfir%imgJ it
M.S.Communication{Phd}*and fin&artakin§"p:i§até;L
tuitiora, on 8.9.2900 a£'=;fi:;c;ut"'e..i'3--'-Zhésgré, was'
going on a motor éyglfi §éé§tfigNogCK§;4899 as
a pillien rifier n§at,fifiit§sw§fi§fi Circle when a
bus beatififitfifitfigaqfig63§§7<@fié (M1 the wreng
side 0futh§;téédE$fi$tdt§§§d against the meter
CYCi$ ,aétt¢ar£§sfi1t .QEW which, the claimant
sustained fré¢tufet of left feat and crush
idjfiry Whtéh, 're$ulted in amputatien. at
.'=metata:é&1 and dis~articu}ation sf digits of
Raxthe"ttQQt}"'Contending that he had suffered
fiermafiéfit disability, tha claimant had filed
' the Claim petitien before the tribunal seeking
mffimpensatisn on various heads. ;é%£//
3. On receipt of ,summons "fgomflnthei
tribunal, respondent
was placed ex~parte,Vvniie fieepon&ent”Nef2 –“e
insurance company. appee§edg_an§.,fi;%d its
written statement oenyind fine efepments of the
claim getition’aed°cente$ting;tne Hatter by
raising the piee oi oontrientote negligence of
the §ridefiTof etneiamotor cycle and seeking
dismiséai,of=tne”eIaimJpetition.
4. iwBaeede on= the above pleadings, the
*<_ triounel framed the following issues;
«i"«_i,iifRnether the petitioner proves that
..»i_b§i sustained inéuries due to the
'oeocident which took place on
Malleewaranx circle, Bangalore at
0.15 hours on 8.9.2008 due to rash
&
-5-
and negligent driving Qf”kiri§e:;Vof”‘
Bus bearing No.KAg05gs39§?7i=’
2. Whether the »petitiQner i$t”entifi1ea»u
to c©mpensation?; If 30; whfit°ambunt°
and from whom? ”
3. what ogdaf? {
5. ifi §upp§ttt§f fiigtdasé, the claimant
examined t’fhiméélfitj;é$fV§V?.W.1 and one
Dr.T;R.Na@éfaj as f:W.2 and another witneas as
P.W.3’and,gbtVfiafiK&§”Ex.P.l to 9.1? while the
respondent Qid not Read any evidence in the
Vimgttétiénfi copy of Ex.R.l “insurance palicy
“flwég mafked with censent.
bfi On. a consideratian of the evidence
fish record, the tribunal awarded compansation
E”~bf Rs.l,25,GOG/– with intarest @a% p.a. from
the date 0f petition till payment.
fl/j/¢
-5-
7. Being aggrieved by the Said judgment u
and award, the claimant hag fiiéduthié«fi§p§él.
seeking enhancement in éumpehsatiefi, *”*
8. We have °Héafd_§fhéufléarfied aounsel
for the aypeilant éhd tug leéruéfi c0un$el for
the 2″;ras@gfi§§ht?&§h§u:auce,§5mpany.
é, :’:t’=iétp$u§m:’ted on behalf of the
appellafit thut the tribunal failed to netice
that’ the Véppgllant had sustained a crush
»injury on the left foot and amputation at the
matatarfialf bones and therefore, there wag
d1$a§i;it§ which Came in the way of his
tugdisghatging his duties as a teacher and that
as }a result, theta its loss <3f future income
uwénd that the tribunal has met granted adequate
compensation. on thig head. It is further
A4
/4
….7_
submitted that 'the award f compensatidn en
the other heads are also meager and tggxéééré,
a fresh assessment of compensation dught fie be l
made by this Court.
10. on the other mag,
by the learned ceuneel fa; tee 3″
insurance company that tfie,t{ibueal_h§e taken
into coneideratieng thee fiaiieus heads of
eempeneetiefic%lan6wl*a ‘3reasonable and just
compensation hee»fieeh awarded which does not
call fer aeyelnterference in tfiis appeal.
V ‘ Elf The efily point that arises for our
eleefieifieretiea is as to whether the
“V2” a rewaeseesment? ;f;/,
eempeneetien awarded by the Tribunal requires
§
_tespendeht –u’
‘erPe1hjahdheeffering £0,800
.Dhe.Medieéi,cenveyance
‘g *§”ettendant ohargee 35,600
-3…
12. On a perusal of the p1eedings and
the evidence see record, we find. thet;hteeV a
result. of the crush injury, *f§ngeér”i§§g’.
amputation at the metatarsal ‘iefieifirethelefth
foot and there has been eereeneht”eisahiletyL
caused to the eppeliaet; hewever; the eeie
disability is not euch thee he cehhot continue
of his profeeeien as a teacher! ;On the other
hand, the award 5% eemeeneation on the heads
of less of ineQmevdtrinq.treatment and loss of
emenitieer are emu the lower side. We,
therefore, award the follewing compensation on
Cmveri0fie.heads in lieu of what has been awarded
Vby the tribuhel:
-9-
Loss of income during .W_~_ ,.
treatment period _,m__ i4G;OQO”
Loss of amenities ah ii”; ?¢;é¢3ffx'””
i
13. The enfiangefifliadofipéfiéépéog shall
carry’ intereat ” @6% §;fi;fi;1 Vibe enhanced
compensatigfi,algfifiwfiiifiifiggfiofiiiénate interest
shall be rgieafiéd §Q.ifie appellant.
1i4i,’iiz:gppe”é3. allewed in part in the
abQve~terms,A V
Sd/-
Iudge
Sd/-
Judge
bkv