High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K Shridhar vs M/S Goa Mineral Pvt Ltd on 8 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri K Shridhar vs M/S Goa Mineral Pvt Ltd on 8 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
 

IN THE EHGH COURT OF KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE
mmn ms THZE osm my or smmmumm, . u
Tm HCJWELE rmwmcz B.sm3:EmvAs§    V

M.F'.A. No.11 19:2,/%2ws %(MV) %%A * %  

9 ND  %  % %    %
M.F.A. No.1 1 191/2063' (MV)_,_ 
M.F'.A. N0. 1'1 1 93:]2C}G;i§_f(MV)

IN M.F'.A. NO. 11 190     

E3

8RII(8HRI1)HA.R_ "".. _ "   L %
3/05121 1cEmAn'1«IA..s;    
Aam>mom45mms».%%V   '4
RIATNO asgangam    
3121:: moss, magma aamm-rs mm

(sv.%.3m: K tr_;f;ai:I1zt:nn:ira;.ir:V2a.s.}sn 3.. aA'rmrAna.L}

 1.

so :92; mummsms cmmnas
NC? 37′,”-I.ADY” airmen ROAD,

V £3′::mmAL mamzancs co um

‘ 3.9 H<..'=«4~g(45, we commmx.
mamsmmn ROAD cams

25

V ammmx. BARAGER

ESPQNDENTS

(art: 3121; 5 ‘£81-IIVALLI FOR R? AND R}. szmmny

mm mm ma 173(1) or xv ACT

wnamm AND AWAR9 DATED: 5.7.2ooa PA$8E!) m .
193712007 {)3 ms ms are’ THE IX ADDL. JUDGE, _
SMALL causms, nmasmz. Inc’:-7. nm’rRoPoLmAu T
Bmcmmxm, (soc.H.1t.7), 1-‘ARTLY ALLOWE?G_* THE
man man coamaxmnon Am amtmzq’ EEEAECJEQKQKT

OF GOEENSATIGN.

IN M.F.A. NO.11191I2008 %

E

munmaanuaaansmg
néo KAII.A$HCHA1!D.Ba\;KfiAL3L@ K1m.asa& BAMALI

A EDABOU’i’15YE&_»%;i:~

war no 251, mm canoes, Mamasxeno smcm,
macmwax 70 %
man Rsmssm *’*1:> B’*:?%%HA1T’»’ mama
FA’I’£”IER em iéranasimmams
@KALLA$HBANE&ALI ‘ –


{BY am: KT  samvapm
 %   "     &

1.  {xxx PVT LTD
rm 192-  crmnmsm
NO. :57,  camzox ROAD,

~ ‘Tm oamma IEEUEAHGE co ma

” 2 ‘go are 4-4; 45, Im GOIWLEX,

% Emu crease

~m’xrsam1omLuaNAGm

A ssrsaxvam ma RSAND

25
RESPONDENIE

1/ iycrncfi ‘to :2: rs Dmvmamzs wrrm

&”

4

Bmmwss, ($CCH.NO.7}, PARTLY ALLOWING TI-IE cum
PETITION FOR coumnaanon Am) smxnze Exmmcmmxrr

U13′ CQHFENSATIGH.

mass APPEALS column on ma.

THIS D$Y. THE CQURT IJELIVERED THE V

A

Theme appeals are m-r v..__the V.

cnhanccment ef campenaation

2. Heard, as that:

appeals are and award
of the Tfibgng’ Jogcmer for final

disposal.

3. _;Fo1j fife <§§' éfinwnimnoe, the parfies are

re;i%réi§i¢;i _:f}a. «a;§:§:A'.*.h:V:4ey" ar§V""¥éfmed to in the slain}. petition

» . _b¢forz1.'£ '

V . Thébxief fiacts csf the case:
. {)_"n.§1.1.2007, when the claimants were trawcllxng'
bearing miauation Na. KA-05-?-7234 being'

by claimant in lwc No.1937/2007 an NH-206

6%/.

near Shivaaaxxdra Gate, 3 Mahendra Belem Vmhjele

bearing registration No. K9.»-o3-2«m~7s:s came in

and negligomt manner and dashed their car.

the claimants fell down and ‘V

they filed claim petitions beforg:

seeldng compensation. that stof ‘V

eampenaatian awarded
the above appeals sacking

5. As occurrence of

accidmt, the insumr of the
afibndixlg vetiielé, thetét that arism far my

2 A tha companaaticn awarded by
tile”-‘If;ibai’1*;gat_§_1’§,s¢”just and reasonable or dam it

_ califsar gnhtéhccment?

: hearing the learned counsel appearing for
and perusing–the judment and award of the

I am of the View that the mzmpenmfienw

&(.

6

awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonablgit is

an the lower side and hacnce it is required ta be V

in the first two appeals.

The fl ‘3 one Sri . V

fracture: of ma: anteriaor wall at 1..-.-.5; -uh
, Iumzm L5. The
sustained from that:

dfififmzge nabs mm’ of the
claimant mum} 9 as ma-4 and 5
respectrve1y’ . bely after the aucident was
takml to Chgbbi. and than-% he was
ts; spans and mad as mm: for a

rm dachsr wm mm rm c}aims.nt

2% ‘5 than’ of 20% to the hit upper

left Lamar mas and 13% to the whole body.

Comideaing the nature of injuriea, 123.135.0001-

hy the Trihtmal towards ‘pain am sufibrm ‘ is just

%.

7

azfi proper and mm: is rm aeexpe far enhanoememt

3. As Rs.13,500/- wanted by

inwards ‘medzm 1 expezw’ is based
produced by tbs ehmant

4. Comiderirmg the it is just
and proper to towards
‘eonveyame, charges’ amt it ‘3
awardadi T. . ..

5. of his r.:anheI1ti¢m. that he
is was eaxmg a sum of Ra 5,0001 –
per the copy of the; I.’).L. at Ex.P~26. In

of imczxm, the Tribunal has rightly

~ at Rs.4,000/- pm’ month. The nature of

that he must haw beam undar rest and

Eur a periad of 3 months and thfire 1′). sum of

W

Rse12,0G0/- h awardm towards ‘has of income duringlaicl
up period’ as man: Rs.8.000l- awm-dad by the AL %

5. Camidemng’ the disability stated by %
an amoum of dhcamfizrt an-A 2

to umwgo in his future me, it is just

sum of R8.15,000/- mwmfls amk ‘ ‘3 ‘V

awarded an mm: Ra.1o,om;- Tram.

7. ‘I’1:nechw11t’ is aged’ the time of
accident, and group is 14.

His income ;,.m.. r-w-5, the do-ctnr
who mama that than ‘3 aiaabaizy of
20% in kéuoea m tha hfi Io°wm- limb and
139§&m. mmuom disability as assessed

at ‘lma cal” fixmm income’ works out In

kL%%:1§*%a.%57,2£3:3/»: pwtzoxxc; 3.00:z12x14} and it is awarded.

, tha c1a.mnn’ : is gamed for the following

mmmmmm

Painand 3 — Ra.35,GflO

b) Medical erpemm — i2u.13,5{X}

ac} Cerwayancc, mmfihmt __
and attemant charges – Ra.6,000
ti) Lose &vof’n3:c€x1ne;c1ux-3% ‘~

but! up permd – Ra.12.;Q§jQV’: A.

e) Loss of amenitzim — Ra.1§3;{)O0’~ – _

1) bass affutum imame – Ra._6’232;<3Qj _ j "

TUFAL Rs%.%A1,43,$oQ.k%%T

9» A<=<»rm1v' 1-the The

judi and award is to
the exam stated far a
total an wfimt
Rs.66,500[-" with intmest at 5%
M. an tlw ofRs.82,200f- frocm the

dam ufcw-n.. tizitha date of rea.ha' tion.

Company is dflected to deposit the

mm. ..m,,~mW.- .4

montim data at' receipt ofa copy ofthia order.

5Out cf the enharwcd compensation, Ra.60,000]-

mm mm' a is ordered in be tastes' and in fixed

ha tha name of clarman' t in any Ratiaaaliw

£5?

10

Bank] Scrwduked BanklPoat Ofiice for a. period of 9′.-yam

rims once in 3 31%. Rmairzing

preportiomtg interest is orclwad to be releawd

the clnizzmnt immediately after the . &

The claimant ‘in omvxyzm. has
sustained rageci wound and wound
d8 nt and Z’ way; auntained by
the ciaimam oeramam Ex.P-12
afi 45 of the claimant,
clainzant %m3,,,,,d an Pm-1, 2 and 5
mspectiw1Y- hi Eeertificate, the are
giiéapbg The claimant, immediately afier
tn Gubbi Primary Heath Centre and

Ltheraaihevv .’ smiled’ to Say: Apollo I-Iaapxta1′ and
y as an a day. Pw-5, the doctor who treatzad
* fit has not atamd anytmm about the diaability.

T 2; Comidcrirg that the claimant aficr austammg

um talam m Gubbi Primary Heahh Centre anti

%

12

IN M.F.A. NO.11193_l300§ [MW

The claimam is am Sr£ Kamh

sustained fiachzre ofnack aflnzwus and

of hit humus. The suatame,;d”‘by« ‘

evidexa from the wtauzud m*t::fim’ .,

oral evidence of the claiwt and’ ‘V

as PWB–1 and 5 afbar
the aocidmt was talem to G§§bi% Centre and
ummmmm 1:2-mind
as inpaaem; far the doctor who
claimant taendemoas over the at
s.hopmer,_; gr ma; shoulder mvemem,
$3; thus he summed the daabimy

‘of limb, 20% in the at lower limb and

jkz; the mum of marina, Rs.60,000/-

the Tribunal towards ‘pain mi auflcrixig’ is on

%’

13

fimhigbm-sidemtdthweiam awpemrmhamammtaygdw

3. As Ra.2,00,000/-~ awarded» by

tnwanis ‘medical am inxzidnntal er:p%¢xgar;~’~ §::

aczzufiny ofthe him by the sm-

4. The 603% granibe
business and mu: the name is not
established In that: absence of
pmaf nf assessing his income at
Rs.6,000[f-i gm bin u-mum: period
sum of Rs.18,000/- tawards

‘InssAL£:£’_ laid up period’. ‘The sum in an the

side.

r f%i5.- Cormidarixag the disability stamd by the dam: and

. of dkcamfnrt and uz1happanesa’ the chi’ 1: may

in rm mm lifts, Rs.25,000/- awardad by the

&”