IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3TH DAY or NOVEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENwAsE--Gow9fi,§' Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2334. of -« .. Between ' M V A Elango, S/0. SOl'1El18Il'1a18. , Aged 43 years, R/a. No. 8. Anugrahaplsi F.1oor,_f- _ Jessy Layout, Behind}-iu_per Eginterpirisies, Pipeline Road, T. Dasarahalli" ' * Bangalore M» 5?, :V..(By --\:Z:"Sh£istri, Adv.) And T Qriefi'tal..._Insurance Co. Ltd ., D.:O.I~.No.49, 2"" Floor ' " e T Jyothvi Mahal 94> . __ 'A Road V ' Banggdore-1 l':3y.it.-s" Manager _ C'; Nagaraju S/o. N. Chinnappa 'A Major Nandhi Village and Post Chikkaballapur Taluk Kolar District. Respondents
(By Sri. C Shankar Reddy, Adv. for R1,
R2 — notice dispensed with V/(). dated. 26.10.2010)
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act againfsfthe
Judgment and award dated: 11. 1 1.20081:”.’pasv-sedr.-__in_
MVC No.7163/2006 on the file of the XIX__Add1.Vi’SIi1al1 ‘
Causes Judge & MACT, Bangalore, pa1*tiy._a11owing thea
claim petition for comp€I’r1sa’ti3n?, arJ..cl” seeking
enhancement ofco111pensation.’.,_ – ‘- ”
This appeal comingon for”Adiniseion.’«this;
the Court, delivered the fo11tix2§fIn.g:
This appeal Ag:,_thex.’Vgdelainlant seeking
enhancement c§f’c.0m’pensation–.V d’ V
2. Hea.rd’.7[gThe.g is admitted and with the
consent,of.1earne’d’ appearing for the parties it
is” up forgfixnaividisposal.
‘ g3″.~—- V’ 3-F'”or”*the sakedddof convenience parties are referred to
VVVasV”r.e’ferred to in the Claim petition.
Bi’i.ef:i’;aets of the case are:
it That on 28.09.2006 when the Claimant was riding
it ‘–_Va-rnotorcycle bearing registration No.KA«O2«EA–6508 on
NH 3, CMTI signal junction, Yeshwanthpur a tempo
bearing registration No. KA~O8««l417 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed his
motorcycle, as a result the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. Hence h”e”fil_ed”‘=a”clairn’.pH
petition before MACT, Bangalore :s;eeking_ co_rr;pen”s’altio11
of ?.3,25,000/- and Ttibutrmli
compensation of interest 6% p.a.
on 31,89,000/t frolnIlltl1e– petition til} its
realisation. 0
5. The sustained fracture of right
humero_u4s, by him is evident from
wo;ui’id certificate ‘P 5, discharge summary Ex P 6,
Ex. P 9. inpatient record Ex. P 14, X-ray
._ supported by oral evidence of the
and the doctor examined as PWs 1 and 2
” iespelctively. PW 2 Dr. Kiran has stated that he
lllgexamined the claimant on 28.02.2008 and found there
” is constant pain in the right elbow and claimant cannot
lift weight of more than 5 kg, and there is restriction of
rs».
movements. In the cross examination he has stated
that he is not an orthopaedic surgeon. He assessedthe
disability to the extent of 10% to the whole A’
6. Considering the nature ‘injiii:ies«
awarded by the Tribunal towardsiptain
just and proper and it does r1’oftv”eall for’
7. The Claimant nrmdieal bills for
$23,796/– whereas 1.-“‘the:”: “has awarded
$32,000/-_.’v expenses and
there is no scope’:-;€or_ enl;a_neem.en”t under this head.
8. Claimant as inpatient in Manipal
Northside Bangalore for 4 days. Considering
I-‘TA”th€ ?°.§5i:0OO/Vimawarded by the Tribunal towards
Aincidental’-Aexfienses is just and proper and it does not
C V’ call for e_niia:-ncement.
,fl’he””..I’ribunal has rightly assessed the income of
Qgtheltciaimant at 18,000/– pm. and awarded ?.12,000/-
C towards loss of income during laid up period and it does
A not call for enhancernent.
10. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
treatment €510,000/– each awarded by the FI1I’I’:’l’:5’l;1(1.’lEil
towards loss of amenities and future
are just and proper and they do b
enhancement.
1}. Considering the disabiiity by tire the
Tribunal has rightly awardedV§V!4’t’f\’;..:1V:,’12, loss
of future income and enhancement
under this head…’ 1 d V V.
12. As ” 61,19,000/–»
awarded by–the right humorous
is found entitlement and there is
no scope for en’ha1’ice:nieAr;t”oiicompensation awarded by
the uapp-e–ai is dismissed as devoid of
to cost.
d L Sdfa
§i1駧