High Court Karnataka High Court

Chikkegowda vs Sujatha, W/O. Jothappa, on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Chikkegowda vs Sujatha, W/O. Jothappa, on 1 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 181' DAY or SEPTEMBER_,.._2010
BEFORE T 'T

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVi&$§§4

Miscellaneous First AD3JeaI,No._ 5249    'A V' ' 

Between

Chikkegowda A 

S / 0. Kempanna @ Kempaiéh' _
Aged about 38 Years VA  _ 
R/ at Malamachha' KI"j1r1te--'_ , .  " '
Chelur Post "   .»
Gubbi Ta1uk__  _  V
Tumkur Disizxjic-t. '

{By Sri. Aqiee :Avc'j§vVs.)

1. Stijaizha"  %
_ _ Major  
 W/0. Jothgppa
' 1Vin'.ayaka Iridustries, GBN Road,
_ Madhu giri Taluk, Tumkur District,

 "  Qf the Tata Lorry Bearing

Reg. No'. KA--O6-7172)

2. Z The Oriental Insurance Company,
 C. Road,
Tumkur.
 Respondents

[By Sri. M Arun Ponnappa, Adv. for R2,

R.1 notice H/S V/0. dated 02/08/2010]

fir

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against
the judgement and award dated 25.01.2008 passed in
MVC No.2 10/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr..Dn.) &
Additional MACT, Gubbi, partly allowing thehlclaim
petition for Compensation and seeking enhan.:ee1nen.t of
compensation. p

This appeal coming on for da¥,r,d

the Court, delivered the following: A

Junamafir

This appeal is by the”-elaimant’—for’w»en:hVaneenient of

compensation awarded by the vT4ribu.nal.

2. Heard.’ _’The and with the
eonsent5.ofafppea,ring for the parties, it
is taken 5 1l§inai- V

3. For the”salfi.e’ oi”‘«e:o113./enieiice parties are referred to

they are».1jeferre’d to in the claim petition before the

2 A lacts of the case are:

” .,V__d’7i”hat on 1242-04, when the claimant was

* –.standing by the side of NH 206 road, in front of Gubbi

Channabasaveshwara Theatre, a lorry bearing

registration No.KA–06–7172 came from Tumkur side in

%

a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him.
As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained

injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition b_efore_.’the

MACT, Bangalore, seeking I g

Rs.5,00,000/–. The Tribunal:-toy”-i«mp*ugne:d; ;;ulag:ne’1;tV’ A

and award has awarded

with interest at 6% p.a. Aglgfieved by’ of

compensation awarded by’*ithen{Tril5t11na1 the Claimant is
in appeal seeking enhaneenient ‘oom_p.ensation.

5. As occurrence of
accidentf éneglipgence of the insurer of the
offending’ point that remains for my
consideration “appeal is:

A A. W’hethe’r the quantum of
_vCo.Inpensation awarded by the Tribunal is

.,ju._st Varid proper or does it call for
enhangeement?

pp hearing the learned Counsel for the parties

it perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

&

not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore

it is deserved to be enhanced.

7. As per Wound certificate — Ex.P.5, th4ev..:Cl.aimant

has sustained the following injuries:

Fracture of claviclebone ar1ld”‘also uvry_o’r1 _

his head and he had bleeding?froiildnoseliiiandvagear1″

and injury on upper _eyebrovv’.’-

Injuries sustained arealso evident from
the discharge card’; . lcia,sel’sheet — Ex.P.10, x–
rays — Exs. 1 an”(i”‘1-lf3’A slip — Ex.P.12
and evidqencewof the claimant and

doctors.e§{:a-‘mined 2 and 3 respectively. He

was treated from 121204 to 1-1-05 for

yalaouet 18 in lflistrict Hospital, Tumkur.

* — Dr. B.Rajanr1a, an Orthopaedic Surgeon

Kllfrorri A Hospital, Tumkur, has stated in his

evidence that claimant had fracture of right clavicle

bone and also head injuries and he was treated for

head injury at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore and for

clavicle injury he was treated at District Hospital,

%

Turnkur. He again examined the claimant on 03-05-07
and found that clavicle bone was malunited and
thereby claimant had suffered 15% physical_4.dlisabi1ity

for the whole body.

8. Considering the nature of. i_njuri’e’s,’

awarded by the Tribunal towai*ds1’paiVn and

on the lower side and it islldieserved to be and it

1 award Rs.25,000/-,. under–t-bais–_he.ad. 0

9. As §Rs.5,000/-00′ ‘Tribunal towards

medical expenses bills produced by

the the same is just and

proper ancl tliaerefore;–i__t”does not call for enhancement.

10:.’ ‘V Clairnant’Was’ treated as inpatient for 19 days at

jldlelospital: Tumkur. He was also treated at

._ NlMFiA1f\lv$,’AV.V’V:”*’:”]3ElI’lgEllOI’€. Considering the same.

awarded by the Tribunal towards incidental

* -expenses is on the lower side and it is deserved to be

enhanced and I award Rs. 10,000/- under this head.

Kr

11. Claimant claims to be doing ‘hamali’ work. The
Tribunal assessing his income at Rs.3,000/ — permonth

and considering the period of treatmentf”as’f.three

months, has rightly awarded Rs.9,000/~

income during laid up period.’ The “sarnel’-is _;’Vus’i; andli’ if

proper and there is no scope foi’.erihaneement.’. if K

12. Considering the doctor
and an amount of landflunhappiness which
he has to ‘life, Rs.3,000/-

awarded of amenities is on
the to be enhanced and I
award this head.

13. 5V~V4,~__(l()Q”/’sdawarded by the Tribunal towards

future ‘inr:o’me is as per disability stated by the

whole body, there is no scope for

l ‘ ,er1hancernent under this head.

14; vV”*;Thus the claimant is entitled for the following

V’ . _ compensation:

1] Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000 / —
2] Medical expenses Rs. 5, 000 / —

fir

3) Incidental expenses Rs. 1 0,000/~
4] Towards loss of income

during laid up period Rs. 9,000 / ~

5) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/–
6} Future loss of income Rs. 54~,.O’O_Q’/5

Total Rs_i-‘1.,18;0DDp:f{ ‘ i.

15. Accordingly the appeal inpart it

Judgment and award of trhe Tridbunal is rpniiordlifiedflto”the

extent stated herein abovedfiifddientitled for
a total compensatioit “as against
Rs.90,000/~ .awarded~–.:by interest at
6% p.a. of Rs.28,000/–

fro1n__~::;1,é3;1fre a petition till the date of

realisation. ‘ ”

” V-Insurance.” Co. is directed to deposit the

‘A «,_enhanceC1.__compensation amount with interest within

._ the date of receipt of a copy of this

jt:dgme’i1t.

Out of the enhanced compensation Rs.20,000/–

with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in

FD. in any nationalised or scheduled Bank in the name

‘£8’

of the claimant for a period of 3 years and the
remaining amount with proportionate interest is

ordered to be released in his favour.

No order as to costs.

mgn*