IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 19% my 05' N0VEMBI33§,"21é!;3;g::__j:. _
PRESENT
THE HOPPBLE MR.JusT1ci=; nEE§>f;;~\KjT é 7
Am?
THE HON'BLE MR.Jtis*r Icg K f?:*.!§?iA19~iN.A:':§
BETWEEN :
W/ca Damadham i€:@dd§*. '
30 yrs, 1*] a N045?
Marutbinagar %
Bhadrappa'layo'u_t"
Nagashetfihailiv 1 " _
B-anga1ure--9'4 _ Appellant
' _ N & Associates, B s Manjunath &
D N Nagaxaja, Adv.)
1 Govindaxaj
'S/Ac Kahppa
. Major, r/a No.44
V Aswathanagar
V ' Sanjaynagar Post
Bangalore:-94
United India Insurance Co.Ltd
[Branch 0&6
Thakur Complex, 1 I91 floor
1 main, S.C.Road
Ycshwanthpura "
Bangalore-22. Rcspondc.fnts=.
(By Sri s V Hcgdc Ag»i1rAx1?.)1'" R-f12.;' R- 1"
This appeal is fi.lcd.=t'm_dcr ficxyticn
against the judmcnt and dated 1._7'~6_-2€_)()4v in
MVC 510.2043] 2002 on the file O.f_th-::_ VII Acldldudge,
Member, MAC!'-3, Court of Sma£1"C'ai1scs, (SOC?!-
3} partiy allowing the ._ci:*3i:I1.'petiIiém.1_V.fd1*.Mcompensation and
seeking enhancement of'oozz1{;»::_1i23$1tion,%_ _
This appc*a._ '} for onicrs,
coming on fo'r*;p:bndunz:c:mc11tA Vthia._...é1'ay, RAMANNA J.,
delivered the .
% H q&oGMENT
has come up with' this appeal
cf compensation awarded by the
ll Judge, Bangaiorc (SCH-3) in MVC
17-6-2004, seeking enhancement.
k% 2., of the case of the appellant/claimant is
that, &2I; %2.'O--9~20fl2 at about 3.30 pain. while she was going
" rider on minor cycle bearing No.KA 01 S 653$,
s s%ith hcr husband, {awards Goddalahalfi, in front of Shiva
Rice Traders on Sanjaynagar Main Road, an auto bearing
."fi,~
No.KA 04 7'68'? came in high speed, in a
manner, dashcd violently the" k V'
consequently she fell down and
She was admitted to mwv Haspgtai, *
and she incnntd huge '.fl1cIV;'t':.f(}I;t:2_:V#}1"?»»fifi£cd the
claim Pctifion. _ 9
3. To provghcr herself as
p.w.1* and as P.W.2
and got to I128. After
before it, the 'Tribunal
-- with pmportionatc
cost i1::Lié:n:V_.V<3i:.-aVtf.6'i'«*£3;§."a . from the date of petition till the
2 ' ..... .. V
. ,, I to appellant, she was aged about 28 years
fit thi: j_ V accident, waking' as twin' 1* and carnal' g
Rs.3u,xG{J(3v/V~ month; that due to the accident, she: was in
'A x V' fl:i.c' L'3:gosv;§'ita1 in all for 26 days and attended follow up
« for mom than one year; that she spent more than
T R$T.1,5O,OOO/~ towards medical tmatment, convcyanoc and
//I I
Thcrcforc the only question that arises for our
is whether the compensation awarded =
various heads is just and L fir» hi é£fv1"A'
enhancement is required? V V. _
7. Admittctdly, due fhc §appc11ant
sustained firacturc of .'3*?"""§j:'Vff~-fg2rr1u1--'v,v'AA(:rV:f¥I11nunitcd
fracture of upper third of injuries. In all
she was fox?! follow up
izcatmcnt. sustained and
tmamcnt 353 inpatient on two
occasions fallow are of the opinion that
a sum of Rs. by the Tribunal under the
has; is too low and inadcquatc,
"W§ award Rs.1,0€),000[- under the said
H * of the injuxics sustained, thc
permancnt partial disabflity and she
's'u&'¢;r same thmughout her remaining part of her
an amount of Rs.1G,0GO/-- awarded by the
.' x»
.
claims ttibuna} under the head ‘loss of
enhanced to Rs.5(},0G0/-.
8. Of course, the appcilant
markcd as Ex.P.8 series “is; ‘Rs,98;$4?’v,V’.:,
claims tribunal has held that azgpufit in the
Ex.P.8 appears to _ infio the
number of gone by her
both as i the fellow up
treatment, therefore we
‘medical expenses’ as
by the manna}. That apart
the compensation of Rs.5,000/-
” cs: ané nounshmcn’ t, but no
awaxded towards attendant charges.
facts and circumstances of the men: we
ifs; Sum of Rs.15,000/- under the hex ‘food,
‘A ‘V~:Lf”x§pi1V::yancc, nourishzncnt and attendant charges’.
‘A 9. Ir’-‘mfhcr, according ta appcflant she is a scfi’
” Wéztzpioytc i.c., working as a Iadics tailor earning Rs.3,£)O0/«
9′?
I:
Z,
pm. To prove her inoomc she has produced
Ex.P. IO/’Salary certificate, but the authox-_.cf 2
not been examined before :
accept the Ex.P. 10, especially v4_vhcn ap pcllant.» L.
a self cmpioyec. Except Ex. no has
been pmduced by appaiiant Thfiitfflit
in the absence of any to prove her
income, the {ac income of the
appcflant iaf and rightly awarded
the head loss of
10. doator the appellant has opined
V. right kywcr iimb and swelling in right
kg a;1d_V’Vativz’f1fiiess in the right lmcz joint and she sufibztd
H at 42% of the right lower limb and 22%
‘V of body; However the Tribunal considering the
‘ “j1.ju*§ic:§ sustai13ed by her has rightly takcn the whole body
.’ of the appellant at 15% and by considering her
T “”Itie11thly income at Rs.2,£}0O/~ and her age at 28 years as on
the date of accident, rightly applied the pmper muEii12!fi§ef’*~1§5′
and awarded eompcnsafion of Rs.57,600/-
‘loss of future wrnings’ and the same,'(3oes;i1et” V’ ‘
enhancement. Thus in all the ap:1)elI:§£1t:j’isAV’
compensation ofRs. 2,94,600 / -‘–..__ V _ V __
1 1. In the light gr the appeal
is allowed in part. modified. The
appellant is eI1tit1.~;-,c:l_…. ieexnpcnsafion of
Rs.1,09,9oo_/i{ . I:€s.i.’,§3.4,(§fJ~f£Iv” ‘¥'”‘Rs.1,84,?0O/—-]. The
afmesaid a'{‘ p.a. frm the
dam: of if Responicnt
No.2/Insurance the cost of lifigfion
thrmfighent Rs 3,000/~ if oert1fied’ .
four weeks that to depomt
annunt together with maxed
5 E
Sdf
Fudge
Sd/~
Judge