IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13% DAY 05' NOVEMBER.f?'O.10 BEFORE " % THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASi§ K "
Miscellaneous First Apnea! Tie; ‘5(.’0 ‘QMf__
Between
C. Manikantan,
S / 0. Chinakoinda Reddy.
Aged about 20 years; . * 1
R/a. C/0. Asha Tradmg” Col._, 1
No.12/2, 2″” Main, ”
A.P.M.C. Yarcl,__ ‘
Tumkur Road, I
Yeshwanthpi{1r.f;1i:e»e’ ‘V .
Bangalore} V eeee ...ApP€11aHt (By"S:_ri'. Adv.) .A,,nM_c_1 M
1, New I1e cIiaӣissurance Co. Ltd..
_ e RD, 2,B,..vUnity Building,
: ”’Af1si_1e;re’ Mission Road,
._ 27.
‘ By jtSe’I\jfanage1*.
vayuaoo: Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
* «.__R/é1t. N0. 360, Vittha} Bhavan,
Opp. Ram Mandir,
‘ Matheran Road, Neral Taluk,
Karjat Dist’.
Responderlts
travelling as a result the claimant. sustained grievous
injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before
Bangalore seeking compensation of
the ‘I’ribunal has awarded eon_1p«enisatio.n’–A of”
Rs.1,57,000/– with interest at 6% I it
4. As there is no dispute”-..regarVdii1g_Qce1}rrenee of V
accident, negligence and lia.bili,ty. ofsthe lnsurer of the
offending vehicle the” :l.th_at=. remains for
consideration isfzl’
awarded by
thep__7lH’ri’b1iria3;;._is’ ja._st._and ‘reasonable or does it
call for eiinharieezifient? _ _-
5. After,hearing”tl’iel:”leVarned Counsel appearing for
the parties and pleriisiriig the judgment and award of the
of the View that the compensation
aw_ar.dVed’vl5y,,l_t,n§%”‘Tribu11al is not just and reasonable, it
V _ is oIi””the’Al.oxt?le.:” side and therefore it is deserved to be
4’ ei1hanc:ed”.
As per wound certificate Ex P 4 the claimant has
~ jsustaiiied 7 injuries, of which injury no. .1. to 5 are
8%
simpie in nature and injury nos. 6 and 7 are grievous in
nature. Injuries sustained by him are also €Vid€fi,’t.f3’OH1
discharge summary Ex P 5, case sheet Ex
EX. P 8 and suppmted by oral
and doctor examined as PWSD land “res.pectiVe1y.’
PW 2 Dr. Mruthyunjaya T;D. has._st’ai.ed
shortening of left ieg and reésvtriction”Ofturncvernents of
ankle. He assessed to the ieft lower
iirnb and 14% to_ the ‘V
7. “3V*{:_11.:€”:.,:i’] V.-injuries, ?’.50,000/ —
awardedi”byi.V.A:fE;1e ;i;&;’ibdi1a1- towards pain and suffering is
just and properd call for enhancement.
8. _;Tii.e ciairnant has produced medica} bifls for
lankd he was inpatient in the hospita} for 4
the same €55,000/~ awarded by the
Tribe na-V1. towards medical and incidental expenses such
asaswcconveyancte, nourishment and attenda.ni. charges is
– and proper and it does not call for enhancement.
9. The Tribunal Considering the profession of the
Clainiant as a Cleaner has rightly assessed his income
at €3,000/~ and considering the period
and rest as 4 months has awarded 3.
loss of income during iaid up period:_anjd”i.t
for enhancement.
10. Considering the, arid disability
stated by the doctor V’ofvl”discomfort and
unhappinessthe; in his future
life 25,000;/”9 towards loss of
it does not call for
enhancement’. .
11. _§’l”he claimant aged about 19 years. The
Vf;1’u1tip1ieri’a}o’;3Jieable to his age group is 18. The doctor
has’l.St«ated’.”3..19t$”disability to the limb and 14% to whole
V .V body.” .(Z’vons’idering 31% disability to limb whole body
it Comes to 10%. Accordingly future loss of
.iii’ta1fiq§mé works out to $64,800/– (13,000/– x 10% x 12
l’ 8} and it is awarded.
interest is ordered to be invested in ED. in {he name of
claimant in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a
period of six years renewable once in three
fi
remaining amount. is ordered t.0 be released fafiratn 01.,
the claimant.
N0 order as to cost.
Vb/-