Mfal 1225.06
1
11! mm HIGH court? on KARKATAKA AT sweeten;
DATED Tms THE 0320 DAY 01? APRI.E4;§*-2(')A:(:J§z.§§"' --A ~
BEFORE... H " V' V'
THE HOWBLE MR.JUa91fxem£.s;::A*riL :7' '
MISCELLANEOUS F'IRfi'i' "1r'io;:__J;__,1_2.>= J
BETWEEH:
Rajiv S}:1etty,
S/o ¥'.Na1*aya11a Shetty, «
Aged about 51 years, _ '
Residing at 'V . I
Kwwmwrfimn ip."2 %
Bangaisre .-A-jE;'s§:60 : APPELLANT
(By siv-i, L.'--Harvies:Vi1iI?::;:;naarV% '
Am):
1.]: ":3I*:f_..__9eepak M313;
" A _ No} 13, Chamber,
*fim@Mmwm,
~ I&ndr,§f._§3:1e"'evidex1ee on record, the Tribunal
had {Quad the aecielent was caused mainly due to the
V' . uegligeeieeexi the part of the driver of the lonzy. The
found that the claimant had aiet)
cenfiiibuteti extent of 25% for the accident as he did not
'retake aeiequate care to stop until the lorry proceeded at the
* 'j1111etion.
W6: As regards the quanmm of compensation, the Tribunal
V awaxtied a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.50,000/- towaxds medical expenses, Rs.9,00(}/-- towards
loss of income during the laid up period and Rs.1S,0OO/-
H.
Mfa 1 1225.06
4
towards loss of amenities. Thus, in all a sum. of R311 -
is arrived at as compensation. Having zegaztf to
regarding the centributoxy negligence, 25% .
is d1sa' {towed and Rs.76,000/- is:":sw;s_nied
along with interest at 6% T'
regarding the contributory negiigencel *:3s_a1s¢:E: regarding
the inadequate compevnse§.'1iQ1i_.A:tE3.e claimant has filed
this appeal. V
7. I for the parties and perused
the evideraeetcn
8. itis seen'f1efi{ eifidenoe of P'W-1-the injured claimant
that on whezttihe was riding his Kinetic Honda on
.h3:ft.A"esid'eA.'of the " :1 " 3:1' Vg road, the driver of the lorry came in
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
the traffic rules and in such a manner as to
endanger the human life and dashed against the claimant's
A It is not even suggested to this witness that his
iégersion Iegazding the gross negligent attributed to the driver of
the lorry was false or incorrect. The respondent has not
chosen to examine the driver of the lorry. In the
cineumstances, there is absolutely no smteriai to come to the
fir
Mfal 1225136
6
has suffered fracture of shaft of right ulna of
radial head and also fractuze of both bones a
junction of upper and middle t[31’rd_, »..H.6 has ~
for open reduction and as regards
of shaft of right “ulna is cots:-einedi …ix;isette€i.i’
Interlocldng nailing of was done.
Twice he was an inpatient in
the hospital in all for who assessed the
disability Iiiati ‘both tibia and ulna had
to be to undergo periodical
check”: He has found that the
claimaiit -.t_o”*:é3:eeute any work which involved
standing, veeight bearing on the light iower limb
by the right upper limb. He has
isle shortening of right limb by about 2 cms and
the restxiction in the range of movements of the
right *e_ib’ow. The doctor has assessed the disability in the right
A “ll” blower limb at 40% and in the upper limb at 30%. Pic has
i opined that the Whole body disability was 30%.
10. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
permanent disabiiity and the resuitant loss of future eazmiugs
on the ground that the doctor who treated the claimant was
b/
Mfal 1225.06
7
not examined. The Tribunal has also opined that
could continue to work as Manager of the hotel
physicai impa11m’ ents sufifemd by himund fie ‘ .
actual loss of earnings. The ::?h.e
monthly Wages earned by st» 1,uon1:h. L’
1 1. Learned counsels yggpt and
justified in contending injured. claimant
taken at E’-n’vViA9″;¢cident which has
occurred in; to the occupation of
the injlzmd. “1’esté;urant is too low. Though
he Certificate issued by his
employer at Ex. 13.9 which discloses that he
_ wasgamiug +- p.£a. in the absence of evidence of the
.Aem.p1oye1~..o1j “his authorised iepresentative, the contents of
” believed. However, the Tribunal ought to
reasonable and realistic assessment keeping in
mud the other evidence availabie on Iecord. In my view, the
‘ixwiccizue of the injured claimant can be safciy taken at
….§€s.3,5oo/- keeping in mind the materials adverted to herein
above.
W
Mfal 1225.06
9
the laid up period and during the period of zest “adage to
Rs. 14,000/—.
14. For 1033 of amenities,
Rs.i5,0()0/- which requires to be R.$.9′(‘)VV,,t)’\”’_’~’._(‘)”j”i}«f’:8.S .
the claimant is bound to he of ieorxgfprits
enjoyment of life in futuxe.
15. No coInpensatieta….V:is_ A future medical
expenses. The.v.doct9r”~§.*..es’e “d1e implants were
inserted Vt mmoval of the said
implants, money towards surgery.
A Wee gee awarded under this head.
16. Id compensation awarded is just
a11d.reasone1ab1eA does not xequixe interference.
. I:;1«.the«”1e_su1t, the appeal is allowed in part. The total
Ate which the claimant is eetieed is determined
eed Rs.1,92,000/-. The claimant is entitled for
‘imerestt at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount {mm the date of
Vgaetitjion till the date of payment. The enhanced amount shall
” ~ “be deposited within a period of eight Weeks from the date of
W
Mfal1225.0ۤ
10
receipt of a. copy of this judgmexzit. The
entitled for costs of this appeal in at sum of l4.’s.3,O_{‘)'<"J;'«}f,V". " %