EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY,
PRESENT 4 V
THE HONBLE MR. .JUST_1CE,_N.K._~'PA:"1.;i;l,';V» '
AND: _
THE HONBLE MR. JUs*f1«2:}3: A S :3
M.FA.No.626Q']2Q_G6_»[MV§' A. . T_
BETWEEN:
S/0 Tanaji K1i_1"nejL~' V . V "
32 yrs, occ: G<fiu1r1(}iand'-a*gri'Cu1t1;u*eV '
r/0 1~1.No.4e91--;fi__K»o1i Gm '_ '
2, _
Belgaxalm " _ - ...APPELLANT
{By SR1': Lingraj for Jagadish Patil, Adv )
AN.1::»_{ : "
SsAhAa111gxar.Dattur Ambewadkar
_ U. Ni'ajor{'QcC; business
" ._ V. R','0_~vL__IC3 ;EII, Mahantesh Nagar
V B¢1.gau_m
2 flivisional Manager
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd
material, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,'/4,500/-- with
interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgme:i:t"'atnd
award, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mc_oiri1~tend_edi' tha:'t;i_ i
the amount awarded under the he'ads"'paii--1 andV:"s".1_ffeVr'i'f1g',i7
'medical expenses', 'future medical?".exper1s_es',= "lossi"0f"--
income during laid up period*..r'p»a"nd 'losspofuarrleiépitieis' are
inadequate and require :tZ'.f..1h«E1}f1.'(-3'€'I"'1l'€'.:I_:'l'C.
4. As against this,' le_a1'ne.d'C'ounse'l»for.the respondent
– insurance zrcpzsrrlqan Vistron ‘l_ “‘~su.bstal:ltiated the award
passed.13y..t_he«l’iriEiun_a1:-.1’He sub-mitted that having regard to
the nature or. by the appellant in a road
traffic acuciderit, the.’ “i’ri_l_:3ur:al has rightly assessed the
coI’1f1.pensa.tion.” ”
it .iWe:’have heard the learned counsel for appellant
i”a_n’d__p.leiarn_edrgiounsel for respondent–insurance company.
‘l’he'<–.onl..y' 'point that arises for determination is 'whether the
U1
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?'
6. After careful perusal of the impugned judgmeritand
award passed by the Tribunal and after evaluationnolf
at threadbare, what emerges is that the ‘l’ribun-al,’ it
evidence of the doctors -« P.W.2 &; 3,-‘Who-have
appellant has undergone five operatio’nsi’liand*
undergone one more operation-.,_ and have iasses’sed”l the l’
disability at 30% of theleft lower lninb’-.and €)C;:Ve._in,,.:iespeci; of
narrowing of urethra, i’1npote.nc{::i:.a.nd;’:trec’urrent of urinary
infection, has ass–essed,.the~ to; thfevllextent of 30% to
the whe1.e_fb~edy’i*::Jihe-»–fre:’baea1….:aae awarded Rs.30.000/-
towards ‘pain which is on the lower side and
requires e’n_hance’rner1t.”Further, the Tribunal has accepted
:he,,_aa’edaea1 biil’ls:E_3x.l?»24 to P-59 and awarded a sum of
.R’s.,$iE,QOQfeifitowards medical expenses and incidental
::h’a._r_geVs’.«lll”_~flThe:;'”appellant must have spent considerable
arniount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant
charges: Further, the compensation awarded towards ‘loss of
/
‘_’_”w.«v
./Tfwy
income during laid up period’ and ‘loss of amenities’
inadequate and requires enhancement.
7. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries,
duration of treatment and pain and agony suffere’d.lVb3t7::hve
appellant, we deem it just and reasonable’ t.0_=.V:a’u}ard”e it
compensation under different heads’ asundetérc it
(i) Pain and suffering – ‘~ . «. T
as againsztfes$30,000/’ ~ _
awarded the’
‘ Tribuna T ‘ I
(ii) Medical expenses, f — _ V -Rs.9’0,000/–
nourishing food arid ‘ } asa.agai~nst Rs. 85,000/»~
attendant charges ” a’wa1*’ded~’ by the
‘ V V ‘ g:>._’l’ri~bti’n’al.
(iii)-iiI.gQss_ of ‘i1::.~,_come’ ‘ Rs. 12,000/ —
;Vduring”laid up parted — as against Rs.8,400/ —
. it l ‘ awarded by the
Tribunal
_ _(iv) Llc5esVV0fai’neiflitilés, — Rs.50,000/–
discornfeértrand V as against Rs.20,000/–
u-nhapp:éness” “”” awarded by the
_ _ Tribunal.
T. Var-u_r:.rne;, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum
e’f._lRls.1,_20i,:9_5l}/– toward ‘loss of earnings’ which is on the
n.–~”‘
lower side and requires enhancement. The appellant was
aged about 32 years and was working as mason and was
also doing agricultural work. On account of the irljaries
sustained, he is not in a position to do the work Qf’l8,vlVT.?i1i3OI!
as Well as agricultural work. The accident occurr_ed.or1_
2004. We can safely assess the income. of i_ther.lapipellla’n:ti
the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month iiRsVAii3.§’1GG
month assessed by the Tribuna_i§’~»..’l’he TribunalV-hasvaswseissed ” V
the disability to the extent of 3A0?/0:-IiD’t’l’}~(i’_ \vhole–?cw.o(:1y§xA»}4ich is
just and reasonable. ‘Thu-s,._a=.compensation of
1:2s.:2,3o,-400/~« tagainstv»aIé;~.1;2Q.,.9eOi/{fVtowards loss of
future ;.nlsoni’e~Vr(i§é,’fi’1:;_.,oooi;-.12 ix; “1~5..x’l30 / 100 ).
Further,’lthe”TriibuVn*al has erred in awarding a sum
of Rs.10,00Q/i-_towards”‘fu?i’ure medical expenses’ which is on
_. V. the lrgwer sided “fhevgoetor has opined that the appellant: has
.to«.,uridve1’go-gone more major surgery and he has to spend
l’c’ohside’r’a;’b_1e’arnount towards medical expenses. Having
regard the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant,