IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN'GALQaE»-.r«_:'t..,_ DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2%ai1:b" T ff: *- BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 5. A31) U12..fJAZEER"' V MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI, No;90;9;2o1tm}m.... Between: Tharesh Babu, S/o Lakshmi Kantha, Aged about 28 years, Lab Technician, _ _ R/0 KarivenakattjewCircie,_51 'V ' Chitradurga Tovrn. ; h (By Sri R. sh;;§hi'da£t:a, And : 1 Managing Dir_ector; i\E«?i.?VK_RT Corporation, _ B--i_iapu1< Division, O"Wi1e1' of Bus T f "Beari.ng.N0_.KA_w28/Fl 294, " .._Bijap.1i1"-..r " V chatnn--a'n, Internal Security Fund, A Karnataka State Road 2. Transport Corporation, " Road, Bangalore. 3 The Depot Manager. Chitradurga Depot, KSRTC, Near Zilla Panchayath Office, Chitradurga. ' * (By Sri F.S. Dabali, Adv.) This MFA is filed ,t:na_er Section j417'3(_1) of the'"Motor Vehicles Act, .1988, against"the_ jti-dg1?<i1eVnt"'*al'1dA'award in MVC No.365/2008 dated 15.4.2009 on -the of t_he'"iv Civil Jduge (SIZDII), Chitradurga, cf": ' C' it This MEA day, the Court delivered the fol10W:iri§§3 ' : Thisiappcaii is the judgment and award in MVC No.365/2tio8,_:da:e'd 1i5.4d.'2&)o9 on the file of the I Additional i.Ci--vi:l. 3iud'gc5f'(.Sr;'Dn.), Chiittadurga. The appellant was the claimant hefoim-the -?.iV(i')u_1't" helow and the respondents were the owner and the
it insurer-,__of Vtl1e_oft’ending vehicie. There is no dispute as to the
“”–:i.'[“–_oc*ctirrence-…of the accident and the iiability of the second
_res.pond_e5nt M Insurance Company to pay compensation. The
t
25%
appellzmt 111155 filed this appeal seeking enltattecmengp
compensation.
2.. I have heard the learned Counsel for the })i1k’L§.jC_s’,_i’~,. ‘ A
3. Learned Counsel for the ztppellztnté \>v<:_5:.tlti-*eo'ntendthat :t':;:1_ :3 A
account of the accident, the elaitnanilltarlul(:)st'hEsl:two' te'e;tlt..§fllvE.eV ssh
taken treatment from Nimhans at
Bangalore and follow up place. i.e. at
Chitradurga. The e()e_rt* helow lalnaouttt towards
nourishme'nt, '.co11.veya'heAe't .anri_'o!.hez" incidental. expenses. lt is
further arguedthatvvthe court' below has not awarded any amount
…towards3–<replacementhf theteeth and the award of compensation
".towV.ardsVlo.s_s"of<a1*r:ve_nities in a sum of ?7.50()/« is on at lower side.
Learned' Cot1'n'sel'A'.:=for the appellant has taken me through the
'.evidenee..V1of the parties, the documents procluced by the
..appelllant/claimant before the court below as also the impugned
ll" __ '' 'l:judgm.ent and award.
.»-w”””””””””-»
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents has sought to justify the impugned juclgnienlt–,larrd’~e.
award.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel “for the parties arid,
having perused the entire materials plaeed7b3l/1 them, ill’ am of.
View that the award of cornpensation’the court be.low
of ?55,000/– is on a lower side.__As rightly lSul5ln:.i;ttecl by ‘tl-ieilearnecl
Counsel for the appellant, the eourti-bel.ow__lhia.s”fnoi~awarded any
cornpensati.on: ‘towarr1fs.._”conveyance; nourishment and other
incidental. expenses. Th_ellaw’ard_;-of compensation towards loss of
….amenities is’~also ona. lower side. The court below ought to have
awarde<:i eonapens"ati_on towards loss of future medical expenses.
Takinhg-.a oi/erfall "view of the matter, it is just and proper to award
[an acldiltional shurn of €25,000/– towards compensation with interest
at 6%'-per annum in addition to what has already been awarded by
= «l.'-'thehcoulrt below.
i
‘ll
6. In the result. the appeal succeeds and it is :_. ‘
allowed in part. The second respondenbhisuraltce”Coriipaoy. is
directed to deposit a sum of ?25,000/– in to :3 Al
awarded by the court below with int€’fe::.t 6%-pea’ anntiiii
date of the application till the date _av’lperlviod of
eight weeks from the date this order. The
appellant is permitted sowiihi deposit. No
costs.