IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANOA;I;;ORE
DATED THIS THE oaamv OF FEBRUAR? =
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'r_1OE Anmb A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST Mrég, NO.V1£¥V5 1_" {EF mv) Ak
BETWEEN :
B. M. Ramakanlh,».27 ytsatwv. _ "
SfoManchigaiah"«.._V ~
No. 37, 10"' Crass O « O
HOsahal1iPi}>e}.:;i'ne' . '
(By Shr i'.~.S:ripaVd G. mm, Advocates)
' .....
sins!-
% '-NO. 3514, mm
' A Assam
' ' 2. Vilisgional Manager
= Qrieiital Insurance Company
¢ - .,_L:i;nit6ci, NO. 44245
Leo Shopping Complex
Residency Road
Bangalore
By its Manager REsmN::¥§.14ffs
(By Shri. K. K. Vasanth, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 notice dispensed with)
Ikfililflkill
This Miscellaneous First «I
173(1) of the Motor Vchicles Acat agaizist fl1e.V.ji–zdgemezi’1 “a’1d’g
award dated 20.9.2005 passed Nt;.6{}62!2003’biH3ic file”
of the 18″‘ Additional Small _Iud’g’e, ._ ibiiémbgzr, Mater
Aecidents Claims Tribvunzgl-4, ,M<v£:f0ptS}iian A1w,5Bangal0n:
(SCCH-4), partly allewing the; 'claim pafitiun fur compensation
and etc. 9' r
This appezai and coming on
for pmnouncgmant 3;]fudgn3e2,2; t!xisfjday,,ti1e Court delivered the
following:–
%% flgUp¢MENT
;’x”Ie..-a_rd ihe appellant and the mspundcnt.
._ had met with a road accident in the year
. 2oo3%%%- a.4&%a4..;m.:¢ uf injms sustained and even after medical
& A y%%%.%;%:muma%he was {band with a permanent physical disability to the
of 10% to the whole budy as certified by a medical
_ Hfuaclitioncr. The appellant was aged about 27 years and was
working as an Assistant Mgager in a private company earning
about Rmeoox. per mtmth. The Tribunal havipgllag;g;e;m1l
Rs.2S,O00/~ towards pain and suileringfm Rs.47;&l4(Ifu-.V ~
medical tnsaimcnl and ether
loss of amenities, totalling to *
filed challenging the same. ..
‘ It is contended. that consider that
the appellant lover 30 months on
acouunl %,pPt’»llanps permanent
d;sab;1;ay au Elle lo am whole-budy is ignored in
rejecting lhclclzgina, filium eaming capacity- That then: is
avéalid §,«.3{w:«:,nls iliitm-;£..medical expenses.
2 claims that he had sulllcn-;d loss. of pay for
élumunl of being laid-up, as a, result of the injuries
‘ that this has uni been compensalcxi.
It is seen that Ihe appellant had examimsd his erstwhile:
D» l ttmploycr who had stated that the appellant had remained absent
%
Fm-m employment for four munths and that he had
{mm service. Though his evidence has been
nature of injuries suifered by the appetIant,_§;an it ‘
warrant bead-rest fer several month:-:. ”
entitled in loss of pay for a VIimi”momtiji-i”.eI”:~§ZS’;25;i000;C’ ‘ it
as com nsatitm tuwanits. loss ,13£’ 7 iii”-»duriuiii”ihe~”i: tied uf
9″ , . P33′ 3 5″
treatinent.
4. Rs-1G,00Gf«- (awards
1055 of ziiarieiiitieszi it not considered the claim
towards lussidii. I’u’tur:;’V«.ezi111iii:1g”iiicapacity, The medical evidence it:
the e£Ti€ct:,.Att1at~.§l1c gppeszant suirm fium a whole-budy disability
‘iii! it the same ought to have been taken into
i cons1ci.¢:ra1i»:3r:.Viiini awarding a nominal sum in this regard and
21:25:’ appeliant wotdd be entitied to a further sum of
G,3t)0!~. There was at:-an evidence to indicate that, there were
it which wueld have H) be fBffit)V6d after surgery, which
i iwuuld involve further medical expenses. Hence, the award of
‘.”>
nv ‘V
as [hriher sum ui’Rs.10,000;’– towards such future
was juslified, which has not been awardg] by . AV ”
The appeal is allowed. 131.; apgc:;an%£ is mu§%¢nmz¢i’1uank%
additional compensation uf Rs.45;’9:(:}0f~ 6% per’
annum fium the date of