IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1m DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2010
A BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE'
gm'
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2767' ' (1\IIlf)'d --.
BETWEEN
K Kandavel _
S/0. Karuppana Gounder
52 Years,
R/At 8, 8rd Main, .Cro'ss,_ f E-
T hungabhadra Road,' ' * }
Maruthinagar, " . ed A
Bangalore _7.?.."
Appellant
{By Sri. shripeaajxfls§gastri;,dd"Adx}'.}*
AND
1. United India Ins-uraI1VC~3 (,0. Ltd.,
13,0. IV,._§1C)/u1O~1,"SE}VR0ad,
I-':'E5aa.aVané1g1lefii,».T.A ----------
Bangalore _ T V
8y'
KAS»11ndara"vel,
S'/0. Kallappa Gounder,
i.",'1'»/e[aj»z)r, No'.5é¥6, 9%" Cross,
47*11fB10Ck, Jayanagar,
Barlgalore ~ 82.
... Respondents
3 “(By Sri. U Abdul. Khader. Adv. for R. 1,
R2 — notice dispensed with V/O. dt: 08.11.2010]
V”hAft:er”p_«hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
‘adridiypverusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the View
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not
registration No.KA.01.F.llO5 came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against their motor cycle.
As a result, the claimant fell down and
injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition
MACT, Bangalore, seeking it
?’. 10,00,000/–. The Tribunal
and award has awarded corn_pensati’on of
with interest at 6% pa. lduaritum of
compensation awarded”‘oyAtl1e the claimant is
in appeal seekingenhancennentiof compensation.
5. As thercflgs no regarding occurrence of
accident, negligence’ “a1’1d:V’liatbil.i’ty of the Insurance Co.,
the only point that rernains my consideration in the
appeal
” V V the quantum of
coni-pyen’sa1:_ior1:;’ ‘awarded by the Tribunal is
just and “proper or does it call for
–V enhancement?
just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is
deserved to be enhanced.
7. The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
i. Type III B compound segmental fracture –
right tibia. Q
ii. Type II Comminuted fracture distalé’ fe’Ii1url}” V.
iii. Fracture acetabulum right. it A
iv. Central dislocation.
Injuries sustained are eyfident
certificate — Ex.P.5, discharge suinniariesv? P136″ and
R7, follow up summary with
negatives — _ record — Ex.P.19,
OPD card — and 23, CT scan
films by oral evidence of the
claimant candid ‘dAolc_to-rd]examined as P.Ws.1 and 2
respectively». ., in
it ‘+3 on the basis of his clinical examination
the of the hospital where the claimant was
treated and also on the basis of check x~ray, has stated
evidence that there is disability of 49% to the
whole body and the Tribunal considered the disability
at 35% to the whole body.
8. Considering the nature of injuries, 340,000/–
awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is
on the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by
another Rs.10,000/- and 1 award Rs.50,00pQ/”}iV.
this head.
9. Claimant has produced medi’ca.1A_
to ‘<'.2,98,495/- and the
?.2,98,500/- towards medical"expensesb is
just and proper and'~.nhe1ée.t;oife~:,/:4.'ituidoes fiotil call for
enhancement.
10. inpatient on three spells
in MS. Rlamaiah and Ganga Hospital for about
p_ Cvonsid-eri_ngv the same, ?. 10,000/W awarded by
the -towards incidental expenses such as
conVeyancej_, nourishment and attendant charges is just
and proper and there is no scope for enhancement
‘ll.’ this head.
lg}. Claimant claims to have been earning Rs.4,500/-
l per month by doing business in selling butter and ghee.
The same is not established by producing any
document. In the absence of proof of income, his
income is assessed at ?.3,000/~ per month as against
32,000/~ assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of.’g:in}’uries
suggest, claimant must have been under”*r.estj’ and
treatment for three months. Therefore…A4_:§A’~,9’i~CO_Q/gg:”
awarded towards loss of income duringl’l,aid “up
12. Considering nature’of..injuries”, disavbil.it.y_sta§ted
the doctor and an of ” «dilsconafort and
unhappiness which””the 1:0 undergo for the
rest of his l.ife_. by the Tribunal
towards .1ossU.of_V4an_1’e1r;glities is just and proper and there
is no scopeyfoi” enhancement under this head.
i’Clairrianlt.VlV___i_$_.aged about 49 years. Multiplier
‘ _”appE.icab«1.e””to his age group is ‘l3′. His income is
l3′;*tfRs.3,OOO/– per month. P.W.2, the doctor
wlhol’ not treated the claimant has stated that
n_;c’i’aimant has suffered disability of 49% to Whole body
and Tribunal has rightly considered the loss of earning
capacity at 35%. 80 loss of future income works out to
g/.
Rs.1,63,800/– [Rs.3,000/– X 35/100 X 12 X 13] and it is
awarded as against Rs.l,00,8000/– awarded by the
Tribunal .
14. ?. 15,000/– awarded by the
future medical expenses is just and proper. andth’ere’is 7
no scope for enhancement.
15. Thus the claimantpp_isl:p’ent’itledhfor__the following
compensation:
1} _Pai11. 1 50,000/-
2) ?__Med’ica1eXper1se_s,_ – %. 2,98,500/-
3) 1mi:z:ien:a1jexpe:~:ises ?. 10,0o0/-
4) ‘Fo’wards’~lo’ss income
1 ”” ” ..:e5duri?n”glaid”up period ? 9,000/-
5; f’i*eweL:::1s«i1_;§ss of amenities 3’. 20,000/–
i e
3
6) 0 E’ut’u_re loss» of income 1 ,63,800 /-
7] 0 . ll Futur’e_ rnedical expenses 15,000/ ~
Total ?.5, 66,300/–~
.\ the appeal is allowed in part and the
and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
it ” Vrextelnt stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for
la”: total compensation of ?.5,66,300/- as against
14,84,300/– awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of ?.82,O00/–
‘ ‘3,..
from the date of claim petition till the date of
realisation.
17. The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with interest”-within
two months from the date of receipt of
judgment and out of the same, 75%
interest is ordered to be deposited’in’~.any-nationalised it
or scheduled Bank in Fixed Deéposit in
claimant for a period of years and’-thefiremaining
amount is orderedidto be released. in favour of the
claimant.
eeeee iudgé
. . A,