High Court Karnataka High Court

Gopala Achar vs Shankar Shenoy on 27 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gopala Achar vs Shankar Shenoy on 27 November, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna
In ms 316%! comer or KARKATAKA A1'  
Burns was ma: am my o§$V%uovmais3ia:V2cébe_  H  E

panama}

um Romans MR. JII3'I51C!Béi)§ E"PAK.'i7 9I£ !4l§ I %

'rim HOH'3LE:§fiR. 
§!I8CE_L__g.AHEO88     2004 Q

amwmnzc:    

Gopa1aAchar,=i     --
S/o Late Ananthay}'é.«:_Achax;' _  "
Aged abo1:u':"69  '7'   "

R10 'Anugmhg, V  V     -- .
Hirgana Vi]1agc._&' Post,    
Karkala Taluiz,   ,\ 

  %
 9;§.x,A. Adv.)

-mu..-----

  1.  ' ' "S§.énoy.

Sfo  Madhava Shcnoy,
, Aged about 43 Years,
 _ R/o  House,
»  Ankem,
'  "Ka.rka]a Kasba,
" I Karkala Taluk,

"  ngggggcr.

   ' The United Indian Insznw Co. Ltd.,

Karkaia Bzm¢h,

"Q

 



represented by its

Branch Manager,

Srinivas Complex,

A.S.Ro&d, Karkala Kasba,  _
Karkaia Taluk ' ' '

 

mmnnmmicr.     

(By Sri,S.V.Hcgdc 
Adv. for R2,  

Respondent No.  -  

Notice dispensgfl

§__1;_a_.J:_* ‘

This Section 173(1) of
the Motor ‘A§.;t;”‘ me Jgaagment and Awazti dated
on the file of the Distlict
Judge as allowing the Claim Petition
for compenéajgbz; of ooznpcasation.

First Appeal coming on for Final Hearing

(1213:; J, delivered the renewing:

JUDGHERT
learned coume} appeared for

Sri.S.V.Hcgdc Mulkhand, counsel appeared
for ‘”Ir:jé p£A>Andcnt No.2. Notice to respondmt No.1 has bwn

‘ I . % _ T with.

“E

2. Claimant is in appwl against the award drafted

passed by MACE’, Udupi, in MVCv.:Nc.6«8/ ; n

«thereunder for the personal ‘

years, a retired teacher[pcnsic>n£érg ‘*aV_su1ii”
with interest at the rate of

3. It has not been ‘float appefiant had
susmined bodily ifiotor mad accident
when he was his rtflaiive on a
Motor -20-K~56’74. A1: that time,
Bajaj : jro’g;i.strat:’on No.KA~20]7l86 being
driven many} by its driver, dashed against the

~M_otor_~ .h_}*___’!’r%hanth Achary, who aiso sustained

‘”:I_t_V1j*:1ries_.V appears to be the General Power of Attorney

Ho’.ldor’–of In his own case, he had settled claim for a

V rpm: a£Ai2s;’é2,ooo/-.

, not been disputed before us that in the said accitlcnt,

had sustained bodily injuries, on anommt of rash

negligent driving of autorickshaw by its driver, owned by

“Q

respondent No. 1 and insumd with mapondent No.2.

in hospital for about 34 days. L131)’ ility of the Ins:1mn.f:

to pay compensation is not     x 

stand proved from the evidence        A

5. Para 7 of the impugzm    or
injuries sustained by appellqtzt    laceration

on different parts of body, of mandible
bone and [mg inpatient in thmc
difibrcnt hospit£1i.fi_««._fo:tv’ days. There he was
heated Shenoy and Dr.Jos.hi.

6. of ” Shcnoy, who had
exam1ned’ éndivtizeteatftezt d1sab1ltty’ ” cemfm te, shows that

he spcectg of mouth and difliculty in eating,

£13 was malunited. His physical disability to

the fias been assessed at 50%, but no functional

whole body has been msesscd. Appcihnt at the

‘aocidcnt was aged about 68 years and 11% already rctimd

and was germs’ pe11s1o’ n.

“33

7. sun we find from the impugned avvmd

awarded to him under dificxent heads-V T.

and desc-Ive to be enhanced. We

aged 68 years at the time of ‘ ‘V37′

getting pensmn. It is as an
agriculturist, he has given’ for cultivation,
the fact that stand {he General Power
of Attorney Holeieié Genet pmpose to award

him any mug. capacity.

8. In sun: which the wpellant spent
in three hqspiteis, V:-1 toVt’,.al a’s.’:;b11£>*’£1}nt of Rs.29,492/ – has wrongly been

W’D,I_’kt=d our calculation it comes to Rs.46,510] –.

This five out, as in one hospital,’ he spent Rs.12,-404/–

charges, he hm paid Rs.20,002/- to
Dr,Rchafi3fflILe 53¢ Dnloshi, who had treated him and a

bi’e!if&s.l ¢s£1G4]~ was spent by 11%;: in Karkaha Nursing Home,

‘V ‘I’11us the tom} sum of the aforesaid thme amounts wouid

Rs.46,5I0/-. Thexefozc amount awarded to him towards

‘6

medicine and tn:-atment charges at Rs.20,*-‘I92/~

Rs.46,5 10/ -.

9. Thc fact cannot be ignored in

hospital on difiemnt occasions’ a
Obviously he must have spent what is
claimed by him. Thus nutrition
and diet, we award him conveyance
charges, we award’ &s1;&»p.;”‘:of~, towards pain and
sufierings, afipcflant, we find jlmt and
proper of», towmtis Loss of
earning’ , ta: awarded is hcxeby retained.
For ioss qr afiienéues, 13¢ disabiiity for a pamtcuzm

fixtgnt df”not11ing has been awarded. We deem it

E: afid’ pmp:-Lr him a sum of Rs. 15,000] -. Thus the intal

V Vlfifresponxients jointly and sesicrafiy, would come

to Rs.1,44u1Y~?,310.]”-.

= aforesaid amount of Rs.1,19,510/– would carxy interest

‘ rate of 8% per mnum from the date of the petition till it is

Y)