-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE_
DATED THIS THE 24TH may or NOVEMBER 2008~{"ff;
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE s.N,$aTYANARAT§NT»:-_ ;"
M.F.A.N0.4091/QOOTMLIE
BETWEEN A E
1 KRISHNA s/Q PUTTARAMU '*
AGED ABQUT 24 YEARS, V _._T.
R/O. KADANKANAHALL1 VILLAGE,,".
VERUPAKSHAPURA HCBLI,rTi;; 'a"
ELETHODAHALLI Posrf.' f
cHANNAPATNA.TALuK;».j
BANGALORE'RBRAL§DEST;
AND ALSO AT C/GTESHRI N NAGARAJ
No;164;,BuA=LATovT;.
AVALAHALLI,"BBNGALCRE
=T - '- "T E"; ... APPELLANT
{By 5:: H K BAsAvARAJ;"ADv)
I! ANb'£fl'€fi.'m 'RR"L/ .....
F,'1 *NEw_IND1A ASSURANCE co LTD
a'B¥~I€S MENAGER
*."No.14;;LxxMI BUILDING
x2ND>FLOflR,
J,C;2RoAD
BAMGALORE «G2
'*12_ E'J HONNA SHETTY
"- 's/0.M.JATA SHETTY,
' AGE:MAJOR, R/0.205,
NALLEGUDDR ROAD, BISADI,
RAMRNAGARAM TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRECT
... RESPON3ENTS
(By Sri: M NARAYANAPPA, ADV FOR R1 }
THIS MFA IS FILED2 U/S 373{Z) 0? MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:O6.09.2006
PASSED IN MVC N0.42f2003 ON THE FILE OF gXI
ADBITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR coMPaNsATIdNaAN§_
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL CGMING om $03 HEARING THISEQaY{'§
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_
JUDGMENT
This is claimant’s apfiéal aha}lefigifig%Wthe
judgment and award u¢ated”‘5}9:2QO6 Epaaaad in
MVC.No.42/2803 on the fi;eEQf7HACT;f3éagalore.
2. T36 page bf tha*blaimant is that he is
working” aé”, a~5 cleaner in lorry bearing
;E No.MEd74545: On QCEUEZOOZ when he was proceeding
‘on’EEanqa;¢rérMyaore Road near Kengeri Upanagar
Circ§é the iarry in which he was travelling met
V2__ with an accident with another lorry, which came
E framEgthe opposite direction in a rash and
‘fihe@;i§ent manner. Due to the said impact the
“gciaimant suffered grievous injuries all over his
‘Jbody and the lorry was also totally damaged. It
“I
,3,
is the case of the claimant that “he “Qasu
immediately shifted to Sahana Hospitalfehereiheilu
was examined and treated tux admitting ltfia as an’
inpatient. It is his case that when he was in7a
the Sahana Hospital X-rays were .tatend~whieh
reveal fracture of right led and also damage to
vertebra L3 to L5; ¥t’THer@att5?r in the said
Hospital operation was dcondaetedldtthe fracture
was united with the tel? of ifinlants and POP was
applied. it is his eggs that he had spent nearly
Rs . 50, 0:36″/”x4; ‘A — Ifgrwit :7’; after initial
treatment. for– ten Vdafisg he was shifted to
Government tfiospitalg for further treatment and
“<after§€tating treatment in the said Hospital he
Vlwas advised to take rest. It is his case that he
is the onl§=earning member in the family and as
~advised by the Doctor he had to undergo one more
d* operation in future for removal of implants and
lrhezhas to be careful due to the injury that he
ddhas: suffered in the accident. It is his case
""that due to mental shock and agony and also due
"H
-5-
5. On appreciation of the pleadinge,
evidence and also after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal partially ailowed the claim of the
petitioner by awarding a sum. of Rs.41,00Qfrd;a3i
compensation with interest at 6% per lehnumidfl
payable from the date of petition t_il’lv-iidate of
realisation. The claimant being aggrie§ed¥hyVthe,i
meager amount of compensation that is awarded to”
him has come up in this appeal claiming that the
quantum of compensation awarded is on lower side
compared “£o= the Vgfijgries that he has suffered,
which according to him has resulted in permanent
disability to himg_l
“~a.»:n this appeal the 1”: respondent entered
appearance through its counsel and notice to 2″‘
«respondent ie dispensed with. Heard the learned
ililCounael for the parties.
7. It is the case of the appellant that the
A “”compound fractures of right tibia upper end and
“‘1
also the fracture of “f§ to L5 vertebra have
rendered him totally’ disabled to do any” manual
work. It is his case that he being a cleaner inN
a lorry he is fit to do only manual work and eithflh”
the kind of injuries that he has-suffered; he is”
not able to continue the same in ffitureaand he i37l
not able to earn substantially for maintenance of
his family. His further case is taatjge is the
only earning member in hie faeily ego the amount
of compensation, that His .aearde8{ to* him is on
lower siaé;-fg;t {is “seen ‘that the appellant is
aged 20 years at the time of accident and he had
a large family to take care of by his earnings
*<and [the linjuries "to …. his leg and to vertebra
ilreoficedahisvability to do work. Considering the
fact that he is illiterate, he is not capable of
.doiné any other work than the work which involves
l9h¥$ioall exertion and xnanual labour and in the
:riight"of the injuries that he has suffered to his
ilvertebra and also to the left tibia, he may not
*'"he able to put the same kind of effort in eking
"A?
-7-
out his livelihood and also earn income, this
Court is of the opinion that the amount _of
compensation that is awarded by the Tribfinal is N
meager. It is seen that the claimant hh§em’no§ui
adduced evidence regarding the injnry that he;has:fl
suffered and the disability that _has jcausedifitoid
him due to the injury. Therefore;’in*theaéhhénce
of an expert opinion by the Ddotor in this hehalf
the Tribunal has fixed »hn n§hgn§= amount of
compensation, which is reduired to be enhanced.
sf The Ttinnhai”a§ardéd a sum of Rs.3,ooo/~
as compensation fohdthe.period when he was laid~
_ up age to the injhries. Admittedly, the accident
;yVi$.Of the year 2003. The claimant being a Coolie
in Bangaiore City he would have earned a minimum
of hg.1QOff her day during that period and his
Z”Wemonthly.ihcome would be not less than Rs.3,000/m
Viv her month. Considering the nature of injury that
lV :he has suffered it would not have been possible
uifor him to work for a period of at–least three
“*1
months. Therefore, the Tribunal should xhe§e_
awarded Rs.9,000/- as compensation fOE*iid5aidef¥iW
income during the laid–up period.”instead:”of,'”
Rs.3,000/m as awarded by it.® the Tribnnal hasgt
awarded Rs.3,000/~ unde§- the .head ;ineidenfiaii
charges. Considering the faot that for a period
of three months he has to he tahen care of, he
should be provided with’nntritionaQfoed and also
there should; be Tsoeeboda ‘tot take? care of him
during vthatif the *Tribunai “should have awarded
atleast7e aéi enm?t;¢fid”Rs;$fOOO/m. Hence, the
compensationd awarded uander the head incidental
__chargesV” is R”inoreased from Rs.3,000/m to
=,R5;3,oo¢/5, “Under the head of loss of amenities
the” Tribenald has awarded a meager sum of
_Rs.10-,. oo.,d/-Wwhich is required to be enhanced to
i””»§s,20,000}–. The amount of compensation awarded
d_hy the Tribunal for medical expenses is also on
Vt”.ioeer side. Considering the nature of injury the
‘R~. Tribunal shonid have awarded a minimum of
Rs.15,OOO/W instead of Rs.5,000/-. So far as the
“7
amount of compensation awarded under the -heaa_
pain and suffering a sum of Rs.20,000/iiiedjfiatki.
and proper. The Tribunal has fiaiied to gegga any» ”
compensation towards the loss of future incomefg’
In the absence of there_ beind any bmedicaii
evidence to show the extent of disability that he
has suffered, it in *just: §fi§._aecessary Vthat a
global sum of Rs.50,000/i baa to be akarded under
the head of less er future incofie-,w7
9.[iTak:n§_ i$£o_ consideration all this the
compensation that tne claimant would be entitled
to is_ RSIJ,22,QO¢{-i” as against a sum of
“*Re.41;9QQ/~,which~is’awarded by the Tribunal and
i7thed”3aid_damefint is payable saith interest at 6%
per annun from the date of petition till date of
*paymentQba§ccordingly, this appeal is allowed in
“‘§art+.
E3dDL€
fudge
»nJSd/*