IN THE HIGH comm or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9% my or NovEMBr;:§<t;f ,
BEFORE k V' '
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Miscellaneous First Appeal 1V"o__. £2909
BETWEEN
Dayananda Salian V
S/o. Late Krishna Salian
Aged about 35 Years A -V * «
Residing at Kin.iyarabettuf;. ' _ _ .
Upinaakote, Varanibzalli Viillage, fj on t 'V
Udupi Ta'11.,1i; afid._Di.striot_. _.
. ..Appel1ant
:';_{By 'sri.'a"s:'sA'ArigaL;ram.)
AND
.1 aya .nS'.Hev_ged.e,
" Aged about 38 years.
W'/o';Nithyaranjandas Shetty,
' Afnaiitha Nagara,
Manoi--_pa;=l.
[__Id'-.1p~i Taluk.
_ 2. z"i"'.}ie Oriental Insurance Company,
V Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
' 2"" Floor, Vishnuprakash
Court Road.
Udupi Taluk and District.
... Respondents
(By Sri. P B Raju, Adv. for R2,
R1 »~ Served)
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV
Judgment and award dated: 27.Q9.2008″p’assed’*in’–l\/IVC”
No. 394/2007 on the file of”Ad’ditional« oiviiiqudge
(Sr.Dn.) & Member, MACT, Ud~.;1pi1;”rp*artrly’allowingtiie
claim petition for compensation and* ‘seeking,
enhancement of compensatiori.
This appeal coming poni’fora.Adrr1’issioni_fithis day,
the Court, delivered the foilovsririg: _
Thi=isyappe’al’7;__s: for enhancement of
cornpensation the”‘Tribunal.
2. I-I’ea_rd.v is admitted and with the
cmfislent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it
t upfor final disposal.
_For3§the sake of Convenience parties are referred to
x as are referred to in the claim petition before the
if ‘Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are:
6/
That on 9–ll~–~O6, when the claimant wasgriding
his motor Cycle bearing registration
from Kunjai towards Brhamavar side, near Ch.antha_jr
Krishi Kendra, car bearing relgistrafiolfl
5567 came in a rash and negligent”manne1j and
against his motor cycle. Alsaa”result,._the:’I=clatInant fell’
down and sustained:~..;nju_rie§,’§ hevvlfiled a claim
petition beforethe compensation
of 3′ . judgment
and awatd of ?. 1,041,850/»
by the quantum of
the Tribunal the claimant is
in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
‘ ivthiere is no dispute regarding occurrence of
itaeijidenttf’negligence and liability of the insurer of the
offending vehicle, the only point that remains for my
V’ .Vco’n_.sideration in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper or does it call for
enhancement?
6/
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
and perusing the award of the ‘l’ribunai,
View that the compensation awarded by
not just and proper, it is on the’}oWe’r side .;ar1dcid«therefore
it is deserved to be enhanced.
7. The claimant has sustairi’e_d*the ioliexizingfiinjuries:
1)
Fracture it disI.o:;a}i(,;n.’ ff:o.f ” torsomrietatarsal
joi:1tS'{R);’foo’t.::: M
{R} foot.
~ (R) foot.
‘ 1 (R) thigh.
= 15X3X1em over (L) thigh.
about 32(1):}/2 em over (L) leg.
vii} 5 7,.
” _ viii)
iX]
avulsion (L) great toe.
Fracture T12, L1, L2, L3 and L5 lumbar
spines (CT).
Multiple CLWS over the forearm (R). Injuries
1,2,3.4, and 8 are grievous in nature.
&”‘
Injuries sustained by him are evident from the
wound certificate — EX.P.3, disability certificate
medical certificate -» Ex.P.9, scan report
supported by oral evidence of the’c’1airnant,ia’n.ddoctor
examined as P.Ws.1 and Zpprespectixlfely.
P.W.2 — doctor__has state’d__in.,_yhis’evidericfe that he
operated the clairriant. of femur and
assessed permanent: V 1 70/oz
8. cofis,1cie;§t,:,ngltihtaigiature injuries, €25,000/–
awa1{deC1 towards pain and suffering is
on theiower “itpV”i”s$.deserved to be enhanced, and
I yaiwara Ré.5o,,ooo/A4 under this head.
i i. /– awarded by the Tribunal towards
linjedicvalllefxpenses is as per medical bills produced by
A the”claimant for Rs.46,844/–, the same is just and
‘Vprloper and therefore, it does not call for enhancement.
l 10. Claimant was treated as inpatient for 18 days in
Mahesh hospital, Brhrriavar, and continued treatment
QK ‘
unhappiness which the claimant has to undergo for the
rest of his life. 315,000/– awarded by th.e__’4ff’rib’una.l
towards loss of amenities is on the lower sidev and it’ V’
deserved to be enhanced by §?._
award ? . 20,000/– under this
13. Claimant is aged 33 0.011}/Iliiltiplierl
applicable to his income is
assessed at doctor has
stated, of 17%. Loss of
earning 55/0. So future loss of
incoriie /-i (€3,500/« x 15/ 100
x 12 xisiand it
***** “awarded by the Tribunal towards
“futuire”«:nedica1 expenses is just and proper and there is
no scope for enhancement.
AA 0. -Thus the claimant is entitled for the following
‘ ~..VVco:ripensation:
1] Pain and suffering ?. 50,000 / ~
2) Medical expenses 3. =i16,850/ —
3) Incidental expenses ? . 5,000 / —
4) Towards loss of income
during laid up period ?’ 14,0xO0_/’-_
5) Towards loss of amenities ? 2O,’f)O”O’/:’~; ..
6) Future loss of income 1′.
7) Future medial expenses ‘R’ V A
. “”~,.l0{G00/~’ it
Total r «
16. Accordingly the alloiyed
Judgment and award of ‘modified to the
extent stated herein”4’ah_ove;.jdheu is entitled for
a total as against
?. 1.04.8001/To with interest at
6% of ?. 141,800/~
fromizithe pl petition till the date of
realiosatioln,_:e>;cl.udi~ng”‘ interest for the delayed period of
.. .. _ in filingthe appeal.
Vghdlsurance Co. is directed to deposit the
enhalnceld compensation amount with interest within
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of
108 days in filing the appeal.
18. Out of the enhanced compensation 80%”-.._with
proportionate interest is ordered to be investe_d:Vi11u:
in any nationalized or scheduled Bank in””t_i:ie jV’na”m’e’ V’
the claimant for a period of
option to withdraw interest ‘periodically; ”
remaining amount with “‘p_roportion_ate-7 interest is
ordered to be re1eas’e:d”‘in his
No order as_ to ;_ciost’s~.;