High Court Karnataka High Court

Deepak B C vs The General Manager on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Deepak B C vs The General Manager on 3 March, 2009
Author: H.Billappa
M.F'.A.8112;'2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'I'AKA AT  " 

DATED THES THE am my 013' MARc1--_{2é'é9   % " 1

BEFORE % T _    
THE HONBLE MR.  * Z 
M.F.A.NO.81  (MS/3L     

Sri.I)eepak BC.  ._ 1 - _  ' 
S/0. Balaram  'V    "   
Aged ab0ut:44  «     %
Manager,  5..    .. 5,
Creative Syz1diL:1t;e"jPIiii:iiz1g"*fiess, ' "  V  V 
& Proprietor NihE§1 §3'nT£§iFpriSé'S,,_ . _'

12/0. (3% Get: Apa1'tme£zts;»,4  " __
N98, 3rd Kasturi Estage; _  V' "
Chennai.  * 2  MAPPELLANT
(By «S:"i.{¥s_I¥iEa;11:1a1anflié1p;}9.,' Aciv)

§ VV  T1115 C;§éf;er_8'e1'V}fé{f;'§£iager,

KSTRC, shamizjnagar,

--   . « .. _}:"'i.:3.;r1gal<:r1'::f..A t.

41;.  ititgtmai Insurance F': 1116.,

 Shanthi Nagar,

% ..  §g:,:ga1ore. ...RESPONDENTS

{E5-“s:~;.:s*.s. Damn, Advecate)

L/1

EV.)

M.F’.A.8112]2003

This M.F.A. is filed under motion 173 (2) of thejixzzgtor
Velrxiclcs Act, praying to mofiify the J utigaent -.

datéd 08.05.2003 passed by the M.A.C.’I’-iII, Daxfariagfizfc; _._in.
M\IC.No.28 I /2002, and to allow this Appeal by e1j.f1a:3.(:.i11gAtht:

compensation. _. W ,. __

This M.F.A. coming on for Admi$sioIi.«ti}i:»:p(i§3.y;.
deiivercd the following: ” ‘ ” v . ”

JUDGME1<m§i

This appeal is directefi and Award

dated 08.05.2003, Qavanagere, in

MVC.No.231.§/2C.A§ 2;';"Vw.':'~-ff'

2. By t1A:{<*¥: and Award the Txibunai
g1'a§:i::g§€1E of Rs.90,0(){)/~ with interest at 8%
fig-«.1. of petition till the date of reaiisation.

that, the appellant has filed this appeal,

_ '–« . gtgieking erihazzcement.

brief, the facts are:

” ishat on 27.09.2001, at abeut 2.00 p.I}:1., the appenant

tlm othem were ‘aaveuing in a car imaging No. TN 07

M.1:*.A.s;:.:2:;2eo3

3289 from Poem’; to Bangalore. When they

Sueolekere cross, a bus bearing No.K_A.=.2Q4/ V’ ‘

speed anti dashed against the car in Lxsgmeh

the ethers were travelling. As éifesult ef V L’

sustained injuries. The appeflan£VVV:.eiaimAed heempexiisation of
Rs.6,50,0{){)/ -, the ‘eempensaiion of
Rs.90,000/- Wi£13’inj;erest egedate of petition
til} the date of bfwitlxat, the appellant
has filed

5. appeliam; contended that
the eompetisaiien the Tribune} towards pain and
ef eiiienities of life and medical expenses is

He also submitted that though the

permanent disability of 24%, the

.. awarded only 3 sum ef Rs.35,0GO/ — towards loss

sf income arid loss of amenities of life which is

He aiso submitted that the appellant has

Viii«:..fl;3::edueed biils to the tune of Rs.2,06,00{)/~– and inspite of

M. F’.A.8 2003

that, the ‘i’ribuna3£ has awanied only a sum of

tewards medical expenses, which is get co1%:’et:t{: __h’e

submitted that the Tribunal has Tnigtxt’ ‘

compensation towards nouriéhmg fmxd, Vc0i;:1iK'{:.3e*:~3.:1cr;¥ and’

I attendant charges and t1}eref0r§3,_ i}1’v.I3t’t3ds ‘fig. A1;§V:’,AAa§{?5arded. He

therefere submitted that and Award

needs to be H

6. As counsel for the
respondefiits’ _– fife Tribunal on proper

considemfidz; bf the record has awarded just and

reas0ne;bie_.con;;pF;nS2itiOn and therefore, it does not Cali for

.infierf6 i’ené:é,

.’ A fiéareftflly censidered the submissicms made by

flag }ea:’i1fi’:.cc}u;19:c1 for the parties.

8′. The paint that arise for consideration is,

Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasanable

compensation.

L//M

{fl

M.F.A,31;i2;2oo3

9. it is relevant to note, the Tribunal

of R:=;.25,(}O()/- towards pain anal i:Fiie.”aEp_:pel£eiitt.

has suffemd fracture of Tibia and Eight

arm and bruises over the _%ell)=o’w,__
awarded a sum of Rs.25.,00O/VA peirivvandi sufferings,
which is reasonable “does not call for

interferezriee.

10. a sum of Rs.3S,0O0/-

towards {loss and loss of amenities of life.

The appellant .i1ais~. of tibia and fibula and

also otlfiex’ has taken treatineiit as inpatient for a

days and thereafter, follow up treatment for

Doctor has deposed that the appellant

V it has Siif£’e1reel’;iiermanent disability of 14%. Hewever, he has

Efiflaileé” gnything about the loss of earning capacity. The

apfleflafit has stated that he is unable to walk and he lixnps.

i appellant has sufiered permanent disability of 14% and

lie has to sufier discomfort through out his life. Therefore, in

M.§*.A.8.1.i2j2Q03

my considered view, a sum of Rs.50,{)0O/

reasonable sum towards disability and »loss of V1if¢:: ‘

and accordingly, it is awanicd.

11. The Tribunal has awarded a s:.1__m’ 0:-R$.3a,eoo;-%

towards medical expenscéss…’ has
medical bills to the tune of Zjas stated that
he has spent considséifagble expenses.
Therefore, it is Rs.40,000/ – towards

medical exp.j¢n$r§AS awarded.

12. Thfié treatment as inpatient for 3
Qfg 1’2 tiferéaiier, follew-up treatmcm; and
The Tribunai has not awarded

any V”_~tQw}f.i11*és nourishing few, conveyance and

‘.VVaf:zr:nda1§t Therefore, it is proper to award a sum of

/– “‘ fowards conveyance, nourisfxing food and

:a’t1”.<§né1aiit r:haI*ges and accordingly, it is awarded.

L//.

towaxfls damage to the vehicle as t_;_;’§1er_t:4 isf “I§(}”‘ ” ”

evidence and therefore, it does not if

13. The Tribuna} has not awarded any .

14. The total _pa§}*a1:)§e c§;:n§§s

M.F.A.81;j2j_?2:}o3

Rs.1,25,(}0{)/~ and the bre:;:¥l;§l:A:~1p

a.


Towards painand  

 ~    '>~1I§s;%'25,0oo.o0

b.

ameni1;ie__s"c5i'  '

Towards d;i$atai3ity Vanfii- v”}0Ss ()_fV

Rs.50,000.00

0.
cl.

Towards medi;-:_:a} éax _ ‘*::::-¢s~

RS. 40,000.00

Towards ;f1ou:i’i’3’1
f00d1_aI1_(}.attéI!}§1Ma13flCh}’i; ‘3 ‘

RS. 10,000.00

Rs.1,25,0()0.0{)

to

, & Accgmmgxy “ms_+ :ap;.§ea1 is anowed and the impugned

LL 4″‘ « . Xééziéeks from teday.

gm i;he%&;:a:e of petition an me date of realisatien.

passed by tha Tribunal, in
modified, g”ant:m’ g commnsation 9:’

_ ..’_12:;-.V1,25,’f1Qd’fi« ifistead of Rs.90,QGO/–~ with mterest @ 3% 13.3.

~”§I’he resmndents shall deposit the amount Within 8

M.F.A.81V.1fi}f’2Q03

The entire amount enhanced shall be

of the appellant.

HSA/Js _ V
{LC} ‘ =;’ 5